ITC Staff Recommends Exclusion of Nanomics Products
The U.S. International Trade Commission's investigative staff urged full remedies against Nanomics Biotechnology after the company stopped defending itself in the case.
Updated on Nov. 5, 2026 in Biotech
Investigative staff at the U.S. International Trade Commission recommended full exclusion and cease-and-desist orders against Nanomics Biotechnology on October 30. Seer, which brought the complaint with co-complainant Brigham and Women's Hospital, said Nanomics notified the ITC in September that it would no longer defend itself or participate in the investigation.
Why it matters
Because Nanomics defaulted, the allegations in Seer's complaint are presumed true with respect to Nanomics' products, shifting the proceeding toward remedies. The outcome bears on proteomics researchers who rely on particle-based protein enrichment tools.
The ITC staff recommendation followed Nanomics' default, meaning its products' allegations are presumed true and no third-party submissions opposed the requested orders. A final Commission determination remains pending, and a parallel federal district court patent infringement suit has not been resolved.
The players
U.S. International Trade Commission
The federal agency that investigates unfair import practices, including alleged patent infringement by imported goods, and can order exclusion of products from U.S. entry.
Seer
A proteomics technology company headquartered in Redwood City, California, that brought the complaint and holds the nanoparticle protein enrichment patents at issue.
Nanomics Biotechnology
The respondent company whose Proteonano products are the subject of the ITC investigation, which withdrew from defending the case.
Brigham and Women's Hospital
A Boston teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard Medical School that is a co-complainant in the ITC proceeding and a party to the related federal lawsuit.
The details
Seer asked the ITC in May to investigate Nanomics' Proteonano products, and Nanomics later withdrew from defending the case. Under ITC procedure, the Commission's attention now centers on the requested exclusion and cease-and-desist orders rather than the underlying allegations.
Timeline
May 2026: Seer requests an ITC investigation of Nanomics' Proteonano products.
September 2026: Nanomics notifies the ITC it will no longer participate.
October 30, 2026: ITC staff recommend granting the full remedies Seer requested.
End of 2026: The Commission is expected to reach a final determination.
Tech Race
The case applies Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the statute under which the ITC decides unfair import disputes, to proteomics tools used in biomedical research. It follows a broader pattern of patent enforcement shaping competition among life-science instrument makers.
Researchers who use Nanomics' Proteonano products could face exclusion orders that restrict their import into the United States if the Commission adopts the staff recommendation. Labs relying on these protein enrichment tools may need to evaluate alternative suppliers while the case proceeds.
The takeaway
Proteomics labs should monitor the ITC's final determination, since an exclusion order could change which enrichment products are available for U.S. research. Reviewing supplier patent status before purchasing can help avoid future supply disruptions.
What happens next
The full Commission is expected to issue a final determination on the ITC investigation by the end of 2026.
Further reading
Explore more coverage of Biotech developments shaping life-science research tools.
Source note: This article includes information reported by The Manila times.
