```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11271-11273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4452]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Review-in-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 above-captioned 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

[[Page 11272]]

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 post-hearing 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

[[Page 11273]]

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
```