Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same: Commission's Determination To Review-in-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions; Extension of the Target Date, 46998-47000 [2015-19287]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46998
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Notices
Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZ, that meets
the definition of sacred object and object
of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C.
3001.
This notice is published as part of the
National Park Service’s administrative
responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25
U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in
this notice are the sole responsibility of
the museum, institution, or Federal
agency that has control of the Native
American cultural items. The National
Park Service is not responsible for the
determinations in this notice.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
History and Description of the Cultural
Item
Around 1974, one cultural item was
removed from the Navajo Nation,
Arizona, New Mexico & Utah, and in
1979 it was donated to the Heard
Museum. The cultural item is a Hochxo
Jish (Evil Way Medicine Bundle).
Representatives of the Navajo Nation,
Arizona, New Mexico & Utah, examined
the cultural item, consulted with
museum staff, and identified it as a
Navajo Jish that is used in the Hochxo
Ceremony (Evil Way), a ceremony that
is still widely practiced by members of
the Navajo tribe. The Navajo people
believe that jish are alive and must be
treated with respect. These are sacred
objects as well as objects of cultural
patrimony and are made by
knowledgeable Navajo people. In order
to possess jish, one must have the
proper ceremonial knowledge with
which to care for and utilize them.
Determinations Made by the Heard
Museum
Officials of the Heard Museum have
determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C),
the cultural item described above is a
specific ceremonial object needed by
traditional Native American religious
leaders for the practice of traditional
Native American religions by their
present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D),
the cultural item described above has
ongoing historical, traditional, or
cultural importance central to the
Native American group or culture itself,
rather than property owned by an
individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there
is a relationship of shared group
identity that can be reasonably traced
between the Hochxo Jish (Evil Way
Medicine Bundle) and the Navajo
Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah.
Additional Requestors and Disposition
Lineal descendants or representatives
of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian
organization not identified in this notice
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
that wish to claim this cultural item
should submit a written request with
information in support of the claim to
John Bulla, Interim Director/CEO, Heard
Museum, 2301 N. Central Avenue,
Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602)
346–8188, email jbulla@heard.org, by
September 8, 2015. After that date, if no
additional claimants have come
forward, transfer of control of the
Hochxo Jish (Evil Way Medicine
Bundle) to the Navajo Nation, Arizona,
New Mexico & Utah, may proceed.
The Heard Museum is responsible for
notifying the Navajo Nation, Arizona,
New Mexico & Utah, that this notice has
been published.
Dated: June 29, 2015.
Melanie O’Brien,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. 2015–19265 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–50–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–907]
Certain Vision-Based Driver
Assistance System Cameras,
Components Thereof, and Products
Containing the Same: Commission’s
Determination To Review-in-Part a
Final Initial Determination Finding No
Violation of Section 337; Request for
Written Submissions; Extension of the
Target Date
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in-part the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
April 27, 2015, finding no violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19
U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned
investigation. The Commission also
extends the target date to October 8,
2015.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2737. The public version of the
complaint can be accessed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov, and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov).
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
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 this investigation
on January 28, 2014, based on a
complaint filed by Magna Electronics
Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. See 79
FR 4490–91 (Jan. 28, 2014). The
complaint alleges violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section
337’’), in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain vision-based
driver assistance system cameras and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,116,929 (‘‘the ’929
patent’’) and 8,593,521 (‘‘the ’521
patent’’). The complaint further alleges
the existence of a domestic industry.
Subsequently, the complaint and notice
of investigation were amended by
adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,686,840 (‘‘the
’840 patent’’) and 8,692,659 (‘‘the ’659
patent’’), and by terminating the
investigation inpart as to all claims of
the ’521 patent. The ’929 patent was
later terminated from the investigation.
The respondent named in the
Commission’s notice of investigation is
TRW Automotive U.S., LLC of Livonia,
Michigan (‘‘TRW’’). The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also
named a party in the investigation.
On April 27, 2015, the ALJ issued his
final ID. The ALJ found that no violation
of section 337 has occurred.
Specifically, the ALJ found that the ’659
and ’840 patents were not indirectly
infringed, that the ’840 patent is invalid,
and that the domestic industry
requirement for the ’840 patent has not
been met. The ALJ also issued his
recommendation on remedy and
bonding.
On May 11, 2015, Magna and TRW
each filed petitions for review. On May
19, 2015, the parties, including OUII,
filed responses to the respective
petitions for review. On May 28, 2015,
Magna filed a corrected response. The
Commission has determined to review
the ALJ’s findings with respect to: (1)
Importation; (2) whether the asserted
claims of the ’659 patent require a
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
camera; (3) direct infringement of the
’659 patent; (4) induced infringement of
the ’659 and ’840 patents; (5)
contributory infringement of the ’659
and ’840 patents; (6) whether the ’659
patent satisfies the requirements of 35
U.S.C. 112; (7) anticipation of the ’659
patent claims based on Rayner; (8)
anticipation of the ’659 patent claims
based on Batavia; (9) anticipation of the
’659 patent claims based on the
SafeTrac Prototype; (10) obviousness of
the ’659 patent based on Rayner in
combination with Blank; (11)
obviousness of the ’659 patent based on
Batavia, the SafeTrac Prototype, and the
Navlab 1997 Demo; (12) whether the
claims are invalid under the America
Invents Act § 33(a); and (13) the
technical prong of domestic industry for
the ’659 and ’840 patents. The
Commission has amended the scope of
the investigation to conform to the
pleadings of the parties as the ID found.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on the issues under review
with reference to the applicable law and
the evidentiary record. In connection
with its review, the Commission is
interested in only responses to the
following questions:
1. Please provide a legal analysis
discussing the relevant evidence concerning
whether the alleged importation(s), sale for
importation, or sale within the United States
after importation meets the statutory
requirements for finding a violation of
section 337 (i.e., do the alleged importations,
sales for importation, or sales in the United
States after importation by TRW satisfy 19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)). Please discuss any
relevant case law including Commission
precedent. Include in your discussion an
analysis for each of the accused products.
2. Please discuss any intrinsic evidence,
including the unasserted claims, file history,
or related patents and applications (and
prosecution histories thereof) that would
guide one of ordinary skill in the art in
determining whether the asserted claims of
the ’659 patent require a camera. Include in
your discussion any relevant case law (e.g.,
case law pertaining to construction of
‘‘configured to’’ limitations).
3. In making his direct infringement
finding for the ’659 patent, the ALJ cited
several non-admitted physical exhibits. For
each of these citations, please identify
whether the physical exhibit was converted
into a demonstrative exhibit and identify the
corresponding demonstrative exhibit, if any.
4. Discuss whether TRW has indirectly
infringed the ’659 patent in light of the
Supreme Court’s decision in Commil USA,
LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015).
In your response to this question, please
include the following for each of the accused
products:
(a) An analysis of whether all of the
requirements for both induced and
contributory infringement are met.
(b) Please address if the focus of the
analysis for determining whether there are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
substantial non-infringing uses should be
directed to: (1) the vehicle having the
accused accessory mounting system
installed, (2) the accused S-Cams, or (3) the
Mobileye EyeQ chip. Please discuss (with
citations to the record) whether there are
substantial non-infringing uses for: (1) the
accused S-Cams; and (2) the Mobileye EyeQ
chip. Please cite to any relevant case law to
support your position.
(c) Discuss whether Magna must prove that
TRW induced infringement of each limitation
of the asserted claims before TRW can be
held liable for induced infringement.
(d) Please discuss whether, under the
proper legal analysis, the relevant inducing
acts must be related to the vehicle, the
accused S-Cams, or the Mobileye EyeQ chip.
Please cite to any relevant case law to
support your position.
(e) Are TRW’s sales to GM that occurred
after issuance of the ’659 patent, sufficient
acts to give rise to induced infringement
liability? Please cite the relevant case law
and the record evidence.
5. [[
]]
6. Should the limitations of ‘‘said structure
is configured to accommodate a forward
facing camera’’ and ‘‘a structure configured
for mounting to said plurality of attachment
members’’ of claims 1, and 90 of the ’659
patent be treated as means-plus-function
limitations? See Williamson v. Citrix Online,
LLC, No. 2013–1130, 2015 WL 3687459 (Fed.
Cir. June 16, 2015). If these limitations are
means-plus-function limitations, please
discuss where the structure corresponding to
the claimed function is disclosed in the
specification.
7. Must every limitation of a claimed
invention be disclosed in a single
embodiment in the specification to meet the
written description requirement? Please
address this question in the context of the
relevant claims of the ’659 patent and any
relevant case law. See TRW Petition for
Review at 33–39.
8. Did TRW, in its briefing before the ALJ,
meet its burden to prove invalidity of the
’659 patent by clear and convincing evidence
in arguing a motivation to combine the
admitted prior art or Blank with Rayner?
9. Please discuss the record evidence, if
any, regarding whether there is a motivation
to combine the admitted prior art or Blank
with the teachings of Rayner.
10. Did TRW meet its burden, in its
briefing before the ALJ, to prove obviousness
of the ’659 patent by clear and convincing
evidence for the combination of Batavia,
SafeTrac, and Navlab 1997 Demo references?
Discuss whether each of the limitations of the
asserted claims is met by the Batavia,
SafeTrac, and Navlab 1997 Demo references.
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 the respondent(s) being
required to cease and desist from
engaging in unfair acts in the
importation and sale of such articles.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46999
Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
When 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 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 Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the U.S. 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
written submissions on the issues
identified in this notice. Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
persons 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. The
complainant and OUII are also
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
47000
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Notices
Complainant is also requested to state
the date that the ’659 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 Friday, August
14, 2015. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business
on Monday, August 24, 2015. No further
submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission. The page limit for the
parties’ initial submissions is 100 pages.
The parties reply submissions, if any,
are limited to 50 pages.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to section
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–907’’) in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf).
Persons with questions regarding filing
should contact the Secretary (202–205–
2000).
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary to the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document
must also be filed simultaneously with
the any confidential filing. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
The Commission extends the target
date to October 8, 2015.
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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 31, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–19287 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–522 and 731–
TA–1258 (Final)]
Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light
Truck Tires From China
Determinations
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject investigations, the United
States International Trade Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant
to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’),
that an industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports
of certain passenger vehicle and light
truck tires from China, provided for in
subheadings: 4011.10.10, 4011.10.50,
4011.20.10, and 4011.20.50 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States, that have been found by
the Department of Commerce to be sold
in the United States at less than fair
value (‘‘LTFV’’) and subsidized by the
government of China.2 3
Background
The Commission, pursuant to sections
705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) and (19 U.S.C.
1673d(b)), instituted these
investigations effective June 3, 2014,
following receipt of petitions filed with
the Commission and Commerce by
United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers,
International Union, Pittsburgh, PA. The
final phase of the investigations was
scheduled by the Commission following
notification of preliminary
determinations by Commerce that
imports of certain passenger vehicle and
light truck tires from China were
subsidized within the meaning of
section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1671b(b)) and dumped within the
meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of
the final phase of the Commission’s
investigations and of a public hearing to
be held in connection therewith was
given by posting copies of the notice in
the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
2 Vice Chairman Dean A. Pinkert and
Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and Rhonda
K. Schmidtlein voted in the affirmative. They
further determine that imports subject to
Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances
determinations are not likely to undermine
seriously the remedial effect of the countervailing
and antidumping duty orders on certain passenger
vehicle and light truck tires from China.
3 Chairman Meredith M. Broadbent and
Commissioners David S. Johanson and F. Scott Kieff
dissenting.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
International Trade Commission,
Washington, DC, and by publishing the
notice in the Federal Register on
February 24, 2015 (80 FR 9744). The
hearing was held in Washington, DC, on
June 9, 2015, and all persons who
requested the opportunity were
permitted to appear in person or by
counsel.
The Commission made these
determinations pursuant to sections
705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) and (19 U.S.C.
1673d(b)). It completed and filed its
determinations in these investigations
on August 3, 2015. The views of the
Commission are contained in USITC
Publication 4545 (August 2015), entitled
Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light
Truck Tires from China: Investigation
Nos. 701–TA–522 and 731–TA–1258
(Final).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 3, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–19319 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request;
Independent Contractor Registration
and Identification
ACTION:
Notice.
The Department of Labor
(DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA)
sponsored information collection
request (ICR) titled, ‘‘Independent
Contractor Registration and
Identification,’’ to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval for continued use,
without change, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public
comments on the ICR are invited.
DATES: The OMB will consider all
written comments that agency receives
on or before September 8, 2015.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with
applicable supporting documentation;
including a description of the likely
respondents, proposed frequency of
response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained free of charge from the
RegInfo.gov Web site at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201408-1219-002
(this link will only become active on the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46998-47000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19287]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-907]
Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras, Components
Thereof, and Products Containing the Same: Commission's Determination
To Review-in-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of
Section 337; Request for Written Submissions; Extension of the Target
Date
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in-part the final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on April 27, 2015, finding no violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned
investigation. The Commission also extends the target date to October
8, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. The public version of
the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and 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 (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this
investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://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 this investigation
on January 28, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Magna Electronics
Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. See 79 FR 4490-91 (Jan. 28, 2014). The
complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), in the importation into
the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of certain vision-based driver
assistance system cameras and components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,116,929 (``the
'929 patent'') and 8,593,521 (``the '521 patent''). The complaint
further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. Subsequently, the
complaint and notice of investigation were amended by adding U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,686,840 (``the '840 patent'') and 8,692,659 (``the '659
patent''), and by terminating the investigation inpart as to all claims
of the '521 patent. The '929 patent was later terminated from the
investigation. The respondent named in the Commission's notice of
investigation is TRW Automotive U.S., LLC of Livonia, Michigan
(``TRW''). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was
also named a party in the investigation.
On April 27, 2015, the ALJ issued his final ID. The ALJ found that
no violation of section 337 has occurred. Specifically, the ALJ found
that the '659 and '840 patents were not indirectly infringed, that the
'840 patent is invalid, and that the domestic industry requirement for
the '840 patent has not been met. The ALJ also issued his
recommendation on remedy and bonding.
On May 11, 2015, Magna and TRW each filed petitions for review. On
May 19, 2015, the parties, including OUII, filed responses to the
respective petitions for review. On May 28, 2015, Magna filed a
corrected response. The Commission has determined to review the ALJ's
findings with respect to: (1) Importation; (2) whether the asserted
claims of the '659 patent require a
[[Page 46999]]
camera; (3) direct infringement of the '659 patent; (4) induced
infringement of the '659 and '840 patents; (5) contributory
infringement of the '659 and '840 patents; (6) whether the '659 patent
satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112; (7) anticipation of the
'659 patent claims based on Rayner; (8) anticipation of the '659 patent
claims based on Batavia; (9) anticipation of the '659 patent claims
based on the SafeTrac Prototype; (10) obviousness of the '659 patent
based on Rayner in combination with Blank; (11) obviousness of the '659
patent based on Batavia, the SafeTrac Prototype, and the Navlab 1997
Demo; (12) whether the claims are invalid under the America Invents Act
Sec. 33(a); and (13) the technical prong of domestic industry for the
'659 and '840 patents. The Commission has amended the scope of the
investigation to conform to the pleadings of the parties as the ID
found.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues
under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary
record. In connection with its review, the Commission is interested in
only responses to the following questions:
1. Please provide a legal analysis discussing the relevant
evidence concerning whether the alleged importation(s), sale for
importation, or sale within the United States after importation
meets the statutory requirements for finding a violation of section
337 (i.e., do the alleged importations, sales for importation, or
sales in the United States after importation by TRW satisfy 19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)). Please discuss any relevant case law
including Commission precedent. Include in your discussion an
analysis for each of the accused products.
2. Please discuss any intrinsic evidence, including the
unasserted claims, file history, or related patents and applications
(and prosecution histories thereof) that would guide one of ordinary
skill in the art in determining whether the asserted claims of the
'659 patent require a camera. Include in your discussion any
relevant case law (e.g., case law pertaining to construction of
``configured to'' limitations).
3. In making his direct infringement finding for the '659
patent, the ALJ cited several non-admitted physical exhibits. For
each of these citations, please identify whether the physical
exhibit was converted into a demonstrative exhibit and identify the
corresponding demonstrative exhibit, if any.
4. Discuss whether TRW has indirectly infringed the '659 patent
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco
Sys., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015). In your response to this
question, please include the following for each of the accused
products:
(a) An analysis of whether all of the requirements for both
induced and contributory infringement are met.
(b) Please address if the focus of the analysis for determining
whether there are substantial non-infringing uses should be directed
to: (1) the vehicle having the accused accessory mounting system
installed, (2) the accused S-Cams, or (3) the Mobileye EyeQ chip.
Please discuss (with citations to the record) whether there are
substantial non-infringing uses for: (1) the accused S-Cams; and (2)
the Mobileye EyeQ chip. Please cite to any relevant case law to
support your position.
(c) Discuss whether Magna must prove that TRW induced
infringement of each limitation of the asserted claims before TRW
can be held liable for induced infringement.
(d) Please discuss whether, under the proper legal analysis, the
relevant inducing acts must be related to the vehicle, the accused
S-Cams, or the Mobileye EyeQ chip. Please cite to any relevant case
law to support your position.
(e) Are TRW's sales to GM that occurred after issuance of the
'659 patent, sufficient acts to give rise to induced infringement
liability? Please cite the relevant case law and the record
evidence.
5. [[ ]]
6. Should the limitations of ``said structure is configured to
accommodate a forward facing camera'' and ``a structure configured
for mounting to said plurality of attachment members'' of claims 1,
and 90 of the '659 patent be treated as means-plus-function
limitations? See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130,
2015 WL 3687459 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015). If these limitations are
means-plus-function limitations, please discuss where the structure
corresponding to the claimed function is disclosed in the
specification.
7. Must every limitation of a claimed invention be disclosed in
a single embodiment in the specification to meet the written
description requirement? Please address this question in the context
of the relevant claims of the '659 patent and any relevant case law.
See TRW Petition for Review at 33-39.
8. Did TRW, in its briefing before the ALJ, meet its burden to
prove invalidity of the '659 patent by clear and convincing evidence
in arguing a motivation to combine the admitted prior art or Blank
with Rayner?
9. Please discuss the record evidence, if any, regarding whether
there is a motivation to combine the admitted prior art or Blank
with the teachings of Rayner.
10. Did TRW meet its burden, in its briefing before the ALJ, to
prove obviousness of the '659 patent by clear and convincing
evidence for the combination of Batavia, SafeTrac, and Navlab 1997
Demo references? Discuss whether each of the limitations of the
asserted claims is met by the Batavia, SafeTrac, and Navlab 1997
Demo references.
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 the
respondent(s) 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. When 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 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 Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843
(December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. 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 written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested persons 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. The complainant and OUII are also requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
[[Page 47000]]
Complainant is also requested to state the date that the '659
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 Friday, August 14, 2015.
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
Monday, August 24, 2015. No further submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. The page limit
for the parties' initial submissions is 100 pages. The parties reply
submissions, if any, are limited to 50 pages.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day
pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-907'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions
regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests
should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include
a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment
by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
The Commission extends the target date to October 8, 2015.
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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: July 31, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-19287 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
