Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding, 62589-62592 [E9-28464]

Download as PDF WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices 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 these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—On October 5, 2009, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (74 FR 54068, October 21, 2009). A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site. Participation in the reviews and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in these reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission’s notice of institution of the reviews need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission’s notice of institution of the reviews need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on March 22, 2010, and a public version will be VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:58 Nov 27, 2009 Jkt 220001 issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission’s rules. Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on April 8, 2010, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before April 2, 2010. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on April 6, 2010, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing. Written submissions.—Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is March 31, 2010. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is April 19, 2010; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before April 19, 2010. On May 7, 2010, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before May 11, 2010, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 62589 Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 Fed. Reg. 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II (C) of the Commission’s Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. Issued: November 23, 2009. By order of the Commission. William R. Bishop, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–28444 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–657] Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding 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 in part the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM 30NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 62590 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices September 22, 2009, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2532. 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 (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 Investigation No. 337–TA–657 on September 22, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Honeywell International Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey (‘‘Honeywell’’). 73 FR 54617 (Sept. 22, 2008). The complainant named the following respondents: Alpine Electronics, Inc. of Japan, and Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. of Torrance, California (collectively ‘‘Alpine’’); Denso Corporation of Japan, and Denso International America, Inc. of Southfield, Michigan (collectively ‘‘Denso’’); Pioneer Corporation of Japan and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long Beach, California (collectively ‘‘Pioneer’’); and Kenwood Corporation of Japan and Kenwood USA Corporation of Long Beach, California (collectively ‘‘Kenwood’’). The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain automotive multimedia display and navigation systems, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,923,286 (‘‘the ’286 patent’’); 6,289,277 (‘‘the ’277 patent’’); 6,308,132 (‘‘the ’132 patent’’); 6,664,945 (‘‘the ’945 patent’’); 6,691,030 (‘‘the ’030 patent’’); and 6,700,482. On March 31, 2009, the ALJ granted Honeywell’s and Kenwood’s joint motion to terminate the investigation as VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:58 Nov 27, 2009 Jkt 220001 to Kenwood, based on a settlement agreement between those parties and pursuant to Commission rule 210.21(b), 19 CFR 210.21(b). On April 15, 2009, the ALJ granted Honeywell’s motion to terminate the investigation as to the ’030 patent pursuant to Commission rule 210.21(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.21(a)(1). On April 19, 2009, the ALJ granted Honeywell’s motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 2–7 of the ’945 patent. On April 23, 2009, the ALJ granted Honeywell’s and Denso’s joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Denso, based on a settlement agreement between those parties. On June 23, 2009, the ALJ granted Honeywell’s and Alpine’s joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Alpine, based on a settlement agreement between them. The Commission determined not to review any of these initial determinations. As against Pioneer, the sole remaining respondent, the following asserted patents and claims remained: ’132 patent (claims 1–7, 17); ’286 patent (claim 5); ’945 patent (claim 1); ’277 patent (claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 20). Pioneer’s accused products include factory-installed GPS units in certain automobiles and certain after-market ‘‘head-unit’’ GPS devices that are mounted in automobile dashboards. On September 22, 2009, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no violation of section 337 by Pioneer. The ALJ found that a domestic industry in the United States exists with respect to Honeywell’s licensing program, which has a nexus to the asserted patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (a)(3). The ALJ construed more than twenty contested claim terms. The ALJ found that the accused products do not literally infringe, directly or indirectly, any asserted claims of any of the asserted patents. (Honeywell did not argue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.) The final ID also found invalid the asserted claims of three of the four asserted patents. The ALJ determined that the asserted claims of the ’132 patent are invalid for four independent reasons. First, the term ‘‘software means’’ in asserted independent claims 1 and 17 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 2. Second, Honeywell’s demonstration of the alleged invention at a trade show more than a year before the application for that patent was filed, constituted a public-use bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Third, Honeywell’s supposed offer to sell the invention to one of its customers constituted an onsale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Fourth, and finally, the ALJ found that the asserted claims of the ’132 patent are PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,092,076 to McDonough. The ALJ ruled that claim 5 of the ’286 patent is invalid for failure of the inventor to disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) the best mode of practicing the patented invention, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 1. The ALJ ruled that the asserted claims of the ’277 patent are anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), by the factoryinstalled navigation system in the 1998 Lexus GS 400 automobile, and its accompanying manuals. The ALJ found claim 1 of the ’945 patent not invalid. On October 5, 2009, Honeywell filed its petition, and Pioneer its contingent petition, for review of the initial determination. Together, the parties petitioned for review of the majority of the ALJ’s claim constructions. Honeywell has also petitioned for review of the ALJ’s findings of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the four patents, as well as of the ALJ’s determinations that the asserted claims of the ’132, ’286 and ’277 patents are invalid. Pioneer has petitioned for review of the ALJ’s determination that the asserted claims of the ’132 patent are not invalid for failure of the inventors to disclose to the USPTO the best mode of practicing the patented invention, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 1. Pioneer also petitions for review of the ALJ’s determination that the asserted claims of the ’945 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by one of several pieces of prior art. On October 13, 2009, Honeywell and Pioneer filed responses to each other’s petition, and the Commission investigative attorney filed a response to Honeywell’s petition. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review: i. The construction of the ’286 patent’s claim terms ‘‘inertial reference system,’’ and ‘‘based upon the IRS position signal, the velocity of the vehicle and the acceleration of the vehicle.’’ ii. The construction of the ’945 patent’s claim terms ‘‘radio select means,’’ ‘‘selectable alphanumeric text portion,’’ ‘‘selectable frequency tuning portion,’’ and ‘‘storage select means.’’ iii. The finding that the asserted claims of the ’132 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by U.S. Patent No. 6,092,076 to McDonough. iv. The finding that claim 5 of the ’286 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 1, for failure to disclose the best mode. E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM 30NON1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices v. The finding that claim 5 of the ’286 patent is not infringed by the accused products. vi. The finding that claim 1 of the ’945 patent is not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by the Alpine CVA–1000 system, U.S. Patent No. 6,725,231 to Obradovich, or U.S. Patent No. 7,398,051 to Bates. vii. The finding that the accused products do not infringe claim 1 of the ’945 patent. viii. The finding that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ’277 patent. ix. The finding that claim 9 of the ’277 patent is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by the 1998 Lexus GS 400. x. The finding that claim 9 of the ’277 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the 1998 Lexus GS 400, in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,725,231 to Obradovich, the 1997 VICS instruction manual, or the Xanavi manual. The Commission has determined to review and to take no position on whether the asserted claims of the ’132 patent are invalid because of an on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1422–23 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID. The parties are requested to brief their positions on the following five questions (and only on the following five questions) concerning the issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. For the questions regarding the ’286 patent, assume the ALJ’s claim constructions except as follows: ‘‘inertial reference system’’ means ‘‘a device that employs a plurality of inertial sensors for determining the position of the vehicle,’’ and such position can be real or relative; ‘‘based upon the IRS position signal, the velocity of the vehicle and the acceleration of the vehicle’’ is afforded its plain meaning and is not limited to usage of error values. For the questions regarding the ’945 patent, assume the ALJ’s claim constructions except as follows: ‘‘radio select means’’ is written in means-plusfunction format with a recited function of ‘‘selecting a radio’’ and a corresponding structure of ‘‘a plurality of buttons’’; ‘‘selectable alphanumeric text portion’’ means a ‘‘portion selectable by the user that contains alphanumeric text’’; ‘‘selectable frequency tuning portion’’ means a ‘‘portion selectable by the user that contains frequency tuning information’’; ‘‘storage select means’’ is written in means-plus-function format with a VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:58 Nov 27, 2009 Jkt 220001 recited function of ‘‘selecting storage’’ and a corresponding structure of ‘‘a button.’’ 1. As so construed, are the specific limits and frequency values withheld by the inventor part of the invention of claim 5 of the ’286 patent for purposes of finding a violation of best mode under 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 1? 2. As so construed, do the accused products infringe claim 5 of the ’286 patent? 3. As so construed, is claim 1 of the ’945 patent anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by the Alpine CVA–1000 system, U.S. Patent No. 6,725,231 to Obradovich, or U.S. Patent No. 7,398,051 to Bates? 4. As so construed, do the accused products infringe claim 1 of the ’945 patent? 5. If the Commission finds that claim 1, but not claim 9, of the ’277 patent is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by the 1998 Lexus GS 400, is claim 9 invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the 1998 Lexus GS 400, in view of any one of the three following references: U.S. Patent No. 6,725,231 to Obradovich, the 1997 VICS instruction manual, or the Xanavi manual? 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 62591 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 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. 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 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 IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the patents expire 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 Monday, December 7, 2009. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on Monday, December 14, 2009. 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 nonconfidential written E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM 30NON1 62592 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices 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). Issued: November 23, 2009. By order of the Commission. William R. Bishop, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–28464 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [ Investigation No. 337–TA–623] In the Matter of Certain R–134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2Tetrafluoroethane) Enforcement Proceeding; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review An Enforcement Initial Determination Finding No Violation of a Consent Order; Termination of the Enforcement Proceeding WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the enforcement initial determination (‘‘EID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on September 21, 2009 in the above-captioned investigation, finding no violation of a September 11, 2008 consent order. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Walters Klancnik, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–5468. 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:58 Nov 27, 2009 Jkt 220001 this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this enforcement proceeding, based on a complaint filed by INEOS Fluor Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd., and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC (‘‘INEOS’’). The complaint alleged that respondent Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co. Ltd. (‘‘Sinochem (Taicang)’’) violated the Commission’s September 11, 2008 Consent Order. The Commission referred the proceeding to the Chief ALJ, who held a prehearing conference and evidentiary hearing on June 22, 2009 with all parties participating. On September 21, 2009, the ALJ issued the subject EID, finding that respondent Sinochem (Taicang) did not violate the Consent Order. On October 6, 2009, INEOS filed a petition for review challenging the ALJ’s conclusion. On October 13, 2009, respondent Sinochem (Taicang) and the Commission investigative attorney each filed oppositions to INEOS’s petition. The Commission has determined not to review the EID. 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 210.75 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 & 210.75). By order of the Commission. Issued November 23, 2009. William R. Bishop, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–28466 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–648] In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integration Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review-In-Part A Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 and To Remand A Portion of the Investigation; Schedule for Written Submissions Relating To Remand, and To 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 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Commission has determined to reviewin-part a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned investigation, and has determined to remand a portion of the investigation to the ALJ. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2310. 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 this investigation on May 21, 2008 based on a complaint filed on April 18, 2008, by LSI Corporation of Milpitas, California and Agere Systems Inc. of Allentown, Pennsylvania (collectively ‘‘complainants’’). The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 semiconductor integrated circuits using tungsten metallization and products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335. The amended complaint named numerous respondents. Several respondents have been terminated from the investigation due to settlement. The following seven respondents remain in the investigation: Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. (‘‘Tower’’) of Israel; Jazz Semiconductor (‘‘Jazz’’) of Newport Beach, California; Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation (‘‘Powerchip’’) of Taiwan; Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (‘‘Grace’’) of China; Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (‘‘IDT’’) of San Jose, California; E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM 30NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 228 (Monday, November 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62589-62592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28464]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-657]


Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, 
Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission 
Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding 
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 in part the final initial 
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') on

[[Page 62590]]

September 22, 2009, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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 
(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 Investigation No. 
337-TA-657 on September 22, 2008, based on a complaint filed by 
Honeywell International Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey (``Honeywell''). 
73 FR 54617 (Sept. 22, 2008). The complainant named the following 
respondents: Alpine Electronics, Inc. of Japan, and Alpine Electronics 
of America, Inc. of Torrance, California (collectively ``Alpine''); 
Denso Corporation of Japan, and Denso International America, Inc. of 
Southfield, Michigan (collectively ``Denso''); Pioneer Corporation of 
Japan and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long Beach, California 
(collectively ``Pioneer''); and Kenwood Corporation of Japan and 
Kenwood USA Corporation of Long Beach, California (collectively 
``Kenwood''). The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation, sale for 
importation, and sale within the United States after importation of 
certain automotive multimedia display and navigation systems, 
components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe 
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,923,286 (``the '286 patent''); 
6,289,277 (``the '277 patent''); 6,308,132 (``the '132 patent''); 
6,664,945 (``the '945 patent''); 6,691,030 (``the '030 patent''); and 
6,700,482.
    On March 31, 2009, the ALJ granted Honeywell's and Kenwood's joint 
motion to terminate the investigation as to Kenwood, based on a 
settlement agreement between those parties and pursuant to Commission 
rule 210.21(b), 19 CFR 210.21(b). On April 15, 2009, the ALJ granted 
Honeywell's motion to terminate the investigation as to the '030 patent 
pursuant to Commission rule 210.21(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.21(a)(1). On April 
19, 2009, the ALJ granted Honeywell's motion to terminate the 
investigation as to claims 2-7 of the '945 patent. On April 23, 2009, 
the ALJ granted Honeywell's and Denso's joint motion to terminate the 
investigation as to Denso, based on a settlement agreement between 
those parties. On June 23, 2009, the ALJ granted Honeywell's and 
Alpine's joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Alpine, 
based on a settlement agreement between them. The Commission determined 
not to review any of these initial determinations.
    As against Pioneer, the sole remaining respondent, the following 
asserted patents and claims remained: '132 patent (claims 1-7, 17); 
'286 patent (claim 5); '945 patent (claim 1); '277 patent (claims 1, 4, 
5, 9, 11, 13, 20). Pioneer's accused products include factory-installed 
GPS units in certain automobiles and certain after-market ``head-unit'' 
GPS devices that are mounted in automobile dashboards.
    On September 22, 2009, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no 
violation of section 337 by Pioneer. The ALJ found that a domestic 
industry in the United States exists with respect to Honeywell's 
licensing program, which has a nexus to the asserted patents as 
required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (a)(3). The ALJ construed more 
than twenty contested claim terms. The ALJ found that the accused 
products do not literally infringe, directly or indirectly, any 
asserted claims of any of the asserted patents. (Honeywell did not 
argue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.)
    The final ID also found invalid the asserted claims of three of the 
four asserted patents. The ALJ determined that the asserted claims of 
the '132 patent are invalid for four independent reasons. First, the 
term ``software means'' in asserted independent claims 1 and 17 is 
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 ] 2. Second, Honeywell's demonstration 
of the alleged invention at a trade show more than a year before the 
application for that patent was filed, constituted a public-use bar 
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Third, Honeywell's supposed offer to sell the 
invention to one of its customers constituted an on-sale bar under 35 
U.S.C. 102(b). Fourth, and finally, the ALJ found that the asserted 
claims of the '132 patent are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,092,076 
to McDonough.
    The ALJ ruled that claim 5 of the '286 patent is invalid for 
failure of the inventor to disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office 
(USPTO) the best mode of practicing the patented invention, in 
violation of 35 U.S.C. 112 ] 1. The ALJ ruled that the asserted claims 
of the '277 patent are anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), by the 
factory-installed navigation system in the 1998 Lexus GS 400 
automobile, and its accompanying manuals. The ALJ found claim 1 of the 
'945 patent not invalid.
    On October 5, 2009, Honeywell filed its petition, and Pioneer its 
contingent petition, for review of the initial determination. Together, 
the parties petitioned for review of the majority of the ALJ's claim 
constructions. Honeywell has also petitioned for review of the ALJ's 
findings of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the four patents, 
as well as of the ALJ's determinations that the asserted claims of the 
'132, '286 and '277 patents are invalid. Pioneer has petitioned for 
review of the ALJ's determination that the asserted claims of the '132 
patent are not invalid for failure of the inventors to disclose to the 
USPTO the best mode of practicing the patented invention, in violation 
of 35 U.S.C. 112 ] 1. Pioneer also petitions for review of the ALJ's 
determination that the asserted claims of the '945 patent are not 
invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by one of several pieces of 
prior art. On October 13, 2009, Honeywell and Pioneer filed responses 
to each other's petition, and the Commission investigative attorney 
filed a response to Honeywell's petition.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, 
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. 
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review:
    i. The construction of the '286 patent's claim terms ``inertial 
reference system,'' and ``based upon the IRS position signal, the 
velocity of the vehicle and the acceleration of the vehicle.''
    ii. The construction of the '945 patent's claim terms ``radio 
select means,'' ``selectable alphanumeric text portion,'' ``selectable 
frequency tuning portion,'' and ``storage select means.''
    iii. The finding that the asserted claims of the '132 patent are 
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by U.S. Patent No. 6,092,076 to 
McDonough.
    iv. The finding that claim 5 of the '286 patent is invalid under 35 
U.S.C. 112 ] 1, for failure to disclose the best mode.

[[Page 62591]]

    v. The finding that claim 5 of the '286 patent is not infringed by 
the accused products.
    vi. The finding that claim 1 of the '945 patent is not anticipated 
under 35 U.S.C. 102 by the Alpine CVA-1000 system, U.S. Patent No. 
6,725,231 to Obradovich, or U.S. Patent No. 7,398,051 to Bates.
    vii. The finding that the accused products do not infringe claim 1 
of the '945 patent.
    viii. The finding that the accused products do not infringe the 
asserted claims of the '277 patent.
    ix. The finding that claim 9 of the '277 patent is anticipated 
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by the 1998 Lexus GS 400.
    x. The finding that claim 9 of the '277 patent is not invalid under 
35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the 1998 Lexus GS 400, in view of U.S. Patent No. 
6,725,231 to Obradovich, the 1997 VICS instruction manual, or the 
Xanavi manual.
    The Commission has determined to review and to take no position on 
whether the asserted claims of the '132 patent are invalid because of 
an on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 
742 F.2d 1421, 1422-23 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
    The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the 
ID. The parties are requested to brief their positions on the following 
five questions (and only on the following five questions) concerning 
the issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the 
evidentiary record.
    For the questions regarding the '286 patent, assume the ALJ's claim 
constructions except as follows: ``inertial reference system'' means 
``a device that employs a plurality of inertial sensors for determining 
the position of the vehicle,'' and such position can be real or 
relative; ``based upon the IRS position signal, the velocity of the 
vehicle and the acceleration of the vehicle'' is afforded its plain 
meaning and is not limited to usage of error values.
    For the questions regarding the '945 patent, assume the ALJ's claim 
constructions except as follows: ``radio select means'' is written in 
means-plus-function format with a recited function of ``selecting a 
radio'' and a corresponding structure of ``a plurality of buttons''; 
``selectable alphanumeric text portion'' means a ``portion selectable 
by the user that contains alphanumeric text''; ``selectable frequency 
tuning portion'' means a ``portion selectable by the user that contains 
frequency tuning information''; ``storage select means'' is written in 
means-plus-function format with a recited function of ``selecting 
storage'' and a corresponding structure of ``a button.''
    1. As so construed, are the specific limits and frequency values 
withheld by the inventor part of the invention of claim 5 of the '286 
patent for purposes of finding a violation of best mode under 35 U.S.C. 
112 ] 1?
    2. As so construed, do the accused products infringe claim 5 of the 
'286 patent?
    3. As so construed, is claim 1 of the '945 patent anticipated under 
35 U.S.C. 102 by the Alpine CVA-1000 system, U.S. Patent No. 6,725,231 
to Obradovich, or U.S. Patent No. 7,398,051 to Bates?
    4. As so construed, do the accused products infringe claim 1 of the 
'945 patent?
    5. If the Commission finds that claim 1, but not claim 9, of the 
'277 patent is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by the 1998 Lexus GS 
400, is claim 9 invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the 1998 Lexus GS 
400, in view of any one of the three following references: U.S. Patent 
No. 6,725,231 to Obradovich, the 1997 VICS instruction manual, or the 
Xanavi manual?
    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. 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 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. 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 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 IA are also requested to submit 
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. 
Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the patents 
expire 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 Monday, December 7, 2009. 
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on 
Monday, December 14, 2009. 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 nonconfidential written

[[Page 62592]]

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).

    Issued: November 23, 2009.

    By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-28464 Filed 11-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P