Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 11271 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 23, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4447 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–694] 

In the Matter of Certain Multimedia 

Display and Navigation Devices and 

Systems, Components Thereof, and 

Products Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Reviewin-Part a Final Determination of No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing Written Submissions on the 

Issues Under Review and on Remedy, 

the Public Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

certain portions of the final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on December 16, 2010 finding 

no violation of section 337 in the abovecaptioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia 

Chen, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436, telephone (202) 708–4737. 

Copies of non-confidential documents 

filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted the instant 

investigation on December 16, 2009, 

based on a complaint filed by Pioneer 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and 

Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long 

Beach, California (collectively, 

‘‘Pioneer’’). 74 FR 66676 (Dec. 16, 2009). 

The complaint alleges violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into 

the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain multimedia display and 

navigation devices and systems, 

components thereof, and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of various claims of United 

States Patent Nos. 5,365,448 (‘‘the ‘448 

patent’’), 5,424,951 (‘‘the ‘951 patent’’), 

and 6,122,592 (‘‘the ‘592 patent’’). The 

complaint names Garmin International, 

Inc. of Olathe, Kansas, Garmin 

Corporation of Taiwan (collectively, 

‘‘Garmin’’) and Honeywell International 

Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey 

(‘‘Honeywell’’) as the proposed 

respondents. Honeywell was 

subsequently terminated from the 

investigation, leaving only the Garmin 

respondents remaining. 

On December 16, 2010, the ALJ issued 

a final ID, including his recommended 

determination on remedy and bonding. 

In his final ID, the ALJ found no 

violation of section 337 by Garmin. 

Specifically, the ALJ found that the 

accused products do not infringe claims 

1 and 2 of the ‘448 patent, claims 1 and 

2 of the ‘951 patent, or claims 1 and 2 

of the ‘592 patent. The ALJ further 

found that neither Garmin nor the 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) has established that claims 1 and 

2 of the ‘592 patent are invalid for 

obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or for 

failing to comply with the written 

description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 

112. With respect to remedy, the ALJ 

recommended that if the Commission 

disagrees with the finding of no 

violation, the Commission should issue 

a limited exclusion order directed to 

multimedia display and navigation 

devices and systems, and the 

components of such devices and 

systems, as well as a cease and desist 

order. The ALJ recommended that the 

limited exclusion order contain a 

certification provision. In addition, the 

ALJ recommended, in the event that a 

violation is found, that Garmin be 

required to post a bond equal to 0.5 

percent of the entered value of any 

accused products that Garmin seeks to 

import during the Presidential review 

period. 

On January 5, 2011, Pioneer, Garmin, 

and the IA each filed a petition for 

review of the ALJ’s final ID. On January 

9, 2011, Pioneer filed a consolidated 

reply to Garmin’s and the IA’s petitions 

for review. On the same day, Garmin 

filed a reply to Pioneer’s petition for 

review and a separate reply to the IA’s 

petitions for review. Also on the same 

day, the IA filed a consolidated reply to 

Pioneer and Garmin’s petitions for 

review. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID and the submissions of the parties, 

the Commission has determined to 

review (1) The claim construction of the 

limitation ‘‘second memory means’’ 

recited in claim 1 of the ‘951 patent, (2) 

infringement of claims 1 and 2 of the 

‘951 patent, (3) the claim construction of 

the limitations ‘‘extracting means’’ and 

‘‘a calculating device’’ recited in claim 1 

of the ‘592 patent, (4) infringement of 

claims 1 and 2 of the ‘592 patent, (5) 

validity of the ‘592 patent under the 

written description requirement of 35 

U.S.C. 112, and (6) the economic prong 

of the domestic industry requirement. 

No other issues are being reviewed. 

The parties should brief their 

positions on the issues on review with 

reference to the applicable law and the 

evidentiary record. In connection with 

its review, the Commission is 

particularly interested in responses to 

the following questions: 

1. With respect to claim 1 of the ‘951 

patent, does the claimed function of the 

limitation ‘‘second memory means’’ 

require ‘‘the read display pattern data’’ 

stored on the ‘‘second memory means’’ 

to be in the same data format with ‘‘said 

display pattern data * * * from said 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 

first memory mean’’? Does the scope of 

the claimed function allow ‘‘display 

pattern data’’ stored on the ‘‘second 

memory means’’ to be derived from and 

to convey the same conceptual 

information as ‘‘display pattern data’’ 

from the ‘‘first memory means,’’ even 

though the display pattern data may be 

represented in different formats? Please 

provide support for your claim 

construction in the claims, the 

specification, the prosecution history, 

and any extrinsic evidence concerning 

how the claim would be understood by 

persons skilled in the art. 

2. Assume that the scope of the 

claimed function of the ‘‘second memory 

means’’ limitation recited in claim 1 of 

the ‘951 patent encompasses ‘‘display 

pattern data’’ stored on the ‘‘second 

memory means’’ that are derived from 

and represented in a different format 

than the ‘‘display pattern data’’ from the 

‘‘first memory means,’’ where both 

‘‘display pattern data’’ represent the 

same conceptual information. Do the 

accused product combinations, i.e., the 

product combinations identified at the 

top of page 3 of complainant’s petition 

for review, meet the ‘‘second memory 

means’’ limitation? 

3. Assuming that the accused product 

combinations meet all of the recited 

limitations of claim 1 of the ‘951 patent, 

do they also meet dependent claim 2’s 

limitation ‘‘wherein said second 

memory means has a plurality of 

memory locations to store said position 

coordinate data and said position 

display data to indicate said display 

pattern as a pair?’’ Please cite to all 

evidence in the record for support. 

4. With respect to the proper 

construction of the function of the 

‘‘extracting means’’ limitation recited in 

claim 1 of the ‘592 patent, does claim 1 

require that the recited ‘‘plurality of 

locations’’ be physically segregated into 

different categories in memory in view 

of the intrinsic evidence (see, e.g., ‘592 

patent, Figure 27 and Col. 16). 

5. If the answer to question 4 is yes, 

do the accused devices meet the 

‘‘extracting means’’ limitation of the ‘592 

patent? Please cite to all evidence in the 

record for support. 

6. With respect to the proper 

construction of the corresponding 

structure of the ‘‘extracting means’’ 

limitation recited in claim 1 of the ‘592 

patent, should the Commission modify 

the corresponding structure identified 

by the ALJ from the specification as 

‘‘CPU programmed to read location data 

from memory and a CD–ROM drive, 

wherein the memory is RAM configured 

to store the location data as depicted in 

Figure 27 ’’? Please provide support for 

your claim construction in the claims, 

the specification, the prosecution 

history, and any extrinsic evidence 

concerning how the claim would be 

understood by persons skilled in the art. 

7. If the answer to question 6 is yes, 

do the accused devices meet the 

‘‘extracting means’’ limitation of the ‘592 

patent? Please cite to all evidence in the 

record for support. 

8. With respect to the proper 

construction of the limitation ‘‘a 

calculating device’’ recited in claim 1 of 

the ‘592 patent, does the intrinsic 

evidence require that the recited term 

‘‘said locations’’ refer to the plurality of 

locations of the selected category that 

has been extracted by the ‘‘extracting 

means,’’ rather than all locations of the 

selected category? 

9. If the answer to question 8 is yes, 

do the ‘‘Search Near’’ mode and the 

‘‘GPS Simulator’’ mode of the accused 

device meet the limitation ‘‘a calculating 

device’’? Please cite to all evidence in 

the record for support. 

10. With respect to the functionality 

discussed on page 124, n. 19 of the ID, 

please cite to all evidence of record 

indicating how this feature operates and 

how this feature does or does not meet 

the ‘‘a calculating device’’ limitation of 

claim 1. Please cite to all evidence in 

the record for support. 

11. Assuming that the specification of 

the ‘592 patent provides adequate 

support for the ‘‘extracting means’’ 

limitation of claim 1 and assuming that 

claim 1 is not directed to the disparaged 

problem in the prior art, does the 

specification provide adequate support 

for ‘‘a selector device’’ and ‘‘a location 

name display device’’ recited in claim 1 

to satisfy the written description 

requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112? 

12. With respect to the economic 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement, what is Pioneer’s 

investment as opposed to DVA’s 

investment for Pioneer’s licensing 

activities with the entity identified on 

page 148 of the ID? 

13. With respect to Pioneer’s licensing 

negotiation efforts with the entity 

identified on page 151 of the ID, what 

is the contribution by Pioneer’s U.S. 

employees? 

14. Do payments made to outside 

counsel by complainant prior to filing 

the instant investigation constitute 

investment in exploitation of the patent 

under section 337(a)(3)(C)? 

15. With respect to the table provided 

on pages 87–88 of complainant’s posthearing brief and adopted by the ALJ on 

pages 157–158 of the ID, please identify 

the targeted licensee for each entry. 

16. Is Pioneer’s investment in 

exploitation of the asserted patents 

through licensing ‘‘substantial’’ under 

section 337(a)(3)(C), in light of the 

Commission’s holding on page 31, first 

paragraph, of Certain Printing and 

Imaging Devices and Components 

Thereof, 337–TA–690, Comm’n Op. 

(Feb. 1, 2011)? 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may (1) issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of the 

subject articles from entry into the 

United States, and/or (2) issue one or 

more cease and desist orders that could 

result in a respondent being required to 

cease and desist from engaging in unfair 

acts in the importation and sale of such 

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

If a party seeks exclusion of an article 

from entry into the United States for 

purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or likely to do so. For 

background, see In the Matter of Certain 

Devices for Connecting Computers via 

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, 

USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors the Commission 

will consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and/or cease and desist 

orders would have on (1) the public 

health and welfare, (2) competitive 

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. 

production of articles that are like or 

directly competitive with those that are 

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 

consumers. The Commission is 

therefore interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the United States Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

See Presidential Memorandum of July 

21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

During this period, the subject articles 

would be entitled to enter the United 

States under bond, in an amount 

determined by the Commission and 

prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. The Commission is therefore 

interested in receiving submissions 

concerning the amount of the bond that 

should be imposed if a remedy is 

ordered. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 11273 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–239, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

written submissions on the issues 

identified in this notice. Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. Such 

submissions should address the 

recommended determination by the ALJ 

on remedy and bonding. Complainant 

and the Commission investigative 

attorney are also requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainant is also requested to state 

the date that the patent expires and the 

HTSUS numbers under which the 

accused products are imported. The 

written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than close of business on March 9, 2011. 

Reply submissions must be filed no later 

than the close of business on March 18, 

2011. The written submissions must be 

no longer than 100 pages and the reply 

submissions must be no longer than 50 

pages. No further submissions on these 

issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Any person desiring to 

submit a document to the Commission 

in confidence must request confidential 

treatment unless the information has 

already been granted such treatment 

during the proceedings. All such 

requests should be directed to the 

Secretary of the Commission and must 

include a full statement of the reasons 

why the Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All non-confidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 

210.50). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 23, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4452 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Second 

Review)] 

Ammonium Nitrate From Russia 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the suspended investigation 

on ammonium nitrate from Russia. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether termination of the 

suspended investigation on ammonium 

nitrate from Russia would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties 

are requested to respond to this notice 

by submitting the information specified 

below to the Commission; 1 to be 

assured of consideration, the deadline 

for responses is March 31, 2011. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

May 16, 2011. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On May 19, 2000, the 

Department of Commerce suspended an 

antidumping duty investigation on 

imports of ammonium nitrate from 

Russia (65 FR 37759, June 16, 2000). 

Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective April 5, 2006, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the suspended 

investigation on imports of ammonium 

nitrate from Russia (71 FR 17080). The 

Commission is now conducting a 

second review to determine whether 

termination of the suspended 

investigation would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct a full 

review or an expedited review. The 

Commission’s determination in any 

expedited review will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is Russia. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination and its full first five-year 

review determination, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product 

coextensively with the subject 

merchandise: fertilizer grade 

ammonium nitrate products with a bulk 

density equal to or greater than 53 

pounds per cubic foot. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination 

and its full first five-year review 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Industry as all domestic 

producers of high density ammonium 

nitrate. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES