Applied Biosystems, Div. of Applera v. United States

715 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 769, 34 C.I.T. 769, 32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1681, 2010 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 80
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedJune 28, 2010
DocketSlip Op. 10-72; Court 03-00251
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 715 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Applied Biosystems, Div. of Applera v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Applied Biosystems, Div. of Applera v. United States, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 769, 34 C.I.T. 769, 32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1681, 2010 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 80 (cit 2010).

Opinion

OPINION

WALLACH, Judge:

I

INTRODUCTION

This action involves classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) of certain thermal cyclers and thermal cycler parts. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) classified these goods under HTSUS Heading 8419, which includes “machinery, plant or laboratory equipment ... for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature” as well as “parts thereof.” Plaintiff Applied Biosystems (A Division of Applera Corporation) (“Plaintiff’) argues that these goods should instead be classified under HTSUS Heading 9032, which includes “[automatic regulating or controlling instruments and apparatus” as well as “parts and accessories thereof.” 1

The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Defendant United States (“Defendant”) seeks summary judgment in its favor. See Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Motion”). Plaintiff opposes summary judgment and seeks trial. See Plaintiffs Motion for Denial of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to Fix a Date and Place for Trial (“Plaintiffs Motion”). 2 The parties have stipulated that the thermal cycler parts at issue are of a kind that should be classified under the same HTSUS heading as the thermal cyclers. See infra Part IV.C.

*1329 Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED. HTSUS Heading 8419 accurately describes the function of a thermal cycler, namely “treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature.” In contrast, HTSUS Heading 9032 describes only those elements of a thermal cycler that regulate heating and cooling and does not describe those elements that actually heat and cool.

II

BACKGROUND

A

Procedural History

This action covers certain thermal cyclers and thermal cycler parts imported by Plaintiff between March 2000 and July 2002. See Summons. 3 Customs classified the thermal cyclers under HTSUS Subheadings 8419.89.90 (2000-2001) and 8419.89.95 (2002) and assessed • duties at some rate between 4.2 percent ad valorem and 4.7 percent ad valorem. See id.; Complaint ¶ 11; Answer to Complaint (“Answer”) ¶ 11. 4 It classified the parts under HTSUS Subheadings 8419.90.80 (2000-2001) and 8419.90.95 (2002) and assessed duties at the 4 percent ad valorem rate applicable to these subheadings. See Complaint ¶ 12; Answer ¶ 12. 5

In nine protests that were timely as to the 162 entries that remain part of this action, Plaintiff asked Customs to reclassify the thermal cyclers under HTSUS Subheading 9032.89.60 (2000-2002) and the parts under HTSUS Subheading 9032.90.60 (2000-2002). See Summons; Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts As to Which There Are No Genuine Issues to Be Tried (“Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Fact Statement”) ¶ 2. 6 The duty rate applicable to these subheadings is 1.7 percent ad valorem. See HTSUS Subheading 9032.89.60 (2000-2002); HTSUS Subheading 9032.90.60 (2000-2002).

After Customs denied those protests, Plaintiff initiated the instant action. See Summons. The court designated this action as a test case and suspended under it nine additional actions initiated by Plaintiff. See June 1, 2005 Order. Defendant then moved for summary judgment in its favor, see Defendant’s Motion, and Plaintiff moved for denial of Defendant’s Motion and “to set a date and place for the trial of this action,” Plaintiffs Motion at 1.

B

Description Of The Imported Goods 7

A thermal cycler is an apparatus for “controlled automated performance of po *1330 lymerase chain reactions.” U.S. Patent No. 5,475,610 (December 12, 1995) at 243 ¶ 1, cited in Plaintiffs Statement of Material Facts Supplemental to Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts (“Plaintiffs Fact Statement”) ¶ 37. 8 A polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) amplifies — that is, massively replicates — certain deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) sequences over multiple cycles. See Plaintiffs Fact Statement ¶ 10. These reactions occur in a liquid mixture comprising the subject DNA, primers, an enzyme known as DNA polymerase, nucleotide precursors, and a buffer solution. See id. ¶ 21. In the first step (denaturation), the mixture is initially heated (typically to 94°C) so that the single strands of each DNA double helix unwind. See id. ¶ 22. In the second step (annealing), the mixture is then rapidly cooled so that a primer binds to the target segment of each strand. See id. In the third step (synthesis), the mixture is again heated (typically to 72°C) so that the DNA polymerase forms a new complementary DNA segment for each target segment. See id. These three steps are repeated for each cycle. See id. ¶ 23. 9 If the subject DNA contains the target segment and each reaction is perfect, then 20 cycles will produce more than a million copies of each such segment and 30 cycles will produce more than a billion copies. See id. ¶ 28.

As its name suggests, a thermal cycler automates this thermal cycling. See id. ¶ 42. The apparatus fits on a countertop and has four pertinent elements:

1) A sample block into which tubes containing the reaction mixture are inserted;
2) A means of heating and cooling the sample block;
3) Sensors that measure the temperature of the sample block; and
4) A computer that calculates temperatures and directs the heating and cooling.

See U.S. Patent No. 5,475,610 at 243 ¶ 1; Plaintiffs Fact Statement ¶¶ 45, 66, 86-92, 95, 108, 112-13; Exhibits 2-7, Deposition of Douglas Grünewald (April 30, 2009) Confidential Exs. 2-6, Annex E, Plaintiffs Motion; see also U.S. Patent No. 5,038,852 (August 13, 1991) at 38 ¶ 1; U.S. Patent No. 5,333,675 (August 2, 1994) at 60-61 ¶ 1; U.S. Patent No. 5,656,493 (August 12, 1997) at 55-56 ¶¶ 1-4; U.S. Patent No. 7,133,726 B1 (November 7, 2006) at 14 ¶ 1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Belimo Automation A.G. v. United States
2013 CIT 144 (Court of International Trade, 2013)
Applikon Biotechnology, Inc. v. United States
807 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Court of International Trade, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
715 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 34 Ct. Int'l Trade 769, 34 C.I.T. 769, 32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1681, 2010 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/applied-biosystems-div-of-applera-v-united-states-cit-2010.