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, 11271-11273 [2011-4452]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country(ies), and such merchandise from other countries. (13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 23, 2011. William R. Bishop, Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. [FR Doc. 2011–4447 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–694] In the Matter of Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Reviewin-Part a Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review certain portions of the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on December 16, 2010 finding no violation of section 337 in the abovecaptioned investigation. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11271 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 E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM 01MRN1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 11272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices first memory mean’’? Does the scope of the claimed function allow ‘‘display pattern data’’ stored on the ‘‘second memory means’’ to be derived from and to convey the same conceptual information as ‘‘display pattern data’’ from the ‘‘first memory means,’’ even though the display pattern data may be represented in different formats? Please provide support for your claim construction in the claims, the specification, the prosecution history, and any extrinsic evidence concerning how the claim would be understood by persons skilled in the art. 2. Assume that the scope of the claimed function of the ‘‘second memory means’’ limitation recited in claim 1 of the ‘951 patent encompasses ‘‘display pattern data’’ stored on the ‘‘second memory means’’ that are derived from and represented in a different format than the ‘‘display pattern data’’ from the ‘‘first memory means,’’ where both ‘‘display pattern data’’ represent the same conceptual information. Do the accused product combinations, i.e., the product combinations identified at the top of page 3 of complainant’s petition for review, meet the ‘‘second memory means’’ limitation? 3. Assuming that the accused product combinations meet all of the recited limitations of claim 1 of the ‘951 patent, do they also meet dependent claim 2’s limitation ‘‘wherein said second memory means has a plurality of memory locations to store said position coordinate data and said position display data to indicate said display pattern as a pair?’’ Please cite to all evidence in the record for support. 4. With respect to the proper construction of the function of the ‘‘extracting means’’ limitation recited in claim 1 of the ‘592 patent, does claim 1 require that the recited ‘‘plurality of locations’’ be physically segregated into different categories in memory in view of the intrinsic evidence (see, e.g., ‘592 patent, Figure 27 and Col. 16). 5. If the answer to question 4 is yes, do the accused devices meet the ‘‘extracting means’’ limitation of the ‘592 patent? Please cite to all evidence in the record for support. 6. With respect to the proper construction of the corresponding structure of the ‘‘extracting means’’ limitation recited in claim 1 of the ‘592 patent, should the Commission modify the corresponding structure identified by the ALJ from the specification as ‘‘CPU programmed to read location data from memory and a CD–ROM drive, wherein the memory is RAM configured to store the location data as depicted in Figure 27 ’’? Please provide support for your claim construction in the claims, VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 223001 the specification, the prosecution history, and any extrinsic evidence concerning how the claim would be understood by persons skilled in the art. 7. If the answer to question 6 is yes, do the accused devices meet the ‘‘extracting means’’ limitation of the ‘592 patent? Please cite to all evidence in the record for support. 8. With respect to the proper construction of the limitation ‘‘a calculating device’’ recited in claim 1 of the ‘592 patent, does the intrinsic evidence require that the recited term ‘‘said locations’’ refer to the plurality of locations of the selected category that has been extracted by the ‘‘extracting means,’’ rather than all locations of the selected category? 9. If the answer to question 8 is yes, do the ‘‘Search Near’’ mode and the ‘‘GPS Simulator’’ mode of the accused device meet the limitation ‘‘a calculating device’’? Please cite to all evidence in the record for support. 10. With respect to the functionality discussed on page 124, n. 19 of the ID, please cite to all evidence of record indicating how this feature operates and how this feature does or does not meet the ‘‘a calculating device’’ limitation of claim 1. Please cite to all evidence in the record for support. 11. Assuming that the specification of the ‘592 patent provides adequate support for the ‘‘extracting means’’ limitation of claim 1 and assuming that claim 1 is not directed to the disparaged problem in the prior art, does the specification provide adequate support for ‘‘a selector device’’ and ‘‘a location name display device’’ recited in claim 1 to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112? 12. With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, what is Pioneer’s investment as opposed to DVA’s investment for Pioneer’s licensing activities with the entity identified on page 148 of the ID? 13. With respect to Pioneer’s licensing negotiation efforts with the entity identified on page 151 of the ID, what is the contribution by Pioneer’s U.S. employees? 14. Do payments made to outside counsel by complainant prior to filing the instant investigation constitute investment in exploitation of the patent under section 337(a)(3)(C)? 15. With respect to the table provided on pages 87–88 of complainant’s posthearing brief and adopted by the ALJ on pages 157–158 of the ID, please identify the targeted licensee for each entry. 16. Is Pioneer’s investment in exploitation of the asserted patents through licensing ‘‘substantial’’ under PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM 01MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:42 Feb 28, 2011 Jkt 223001 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Second Review)] Ammonium Nitrate From Russia United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of a five-year review concerning the suspended investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia. AGENCY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission; 1 to be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is March 31, 2011. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by May 16, 2011. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 2009). DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the SUMMARY: 1 No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–239, expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11273 Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—On May 19, 2000, the Department of Commerce suspended an antidumping duty investigation on imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia (65 FR 37759, June 16, 2000). Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective April 5, 2006, Commerce issued a continuation of the suspended investigation on imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia (71 FR 17080). The Commission is now conducting a second review to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission’s determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice. Definitions.—The following definitions apply to this review: (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce. (2) The Subject Country in this review is Russia. (3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determination and its full first five-year review determination, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product coextensively with the subject merchandise: fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate products with a bulk density equal to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot. (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination and its full first five-year review determination, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as all domestic producers of high density ammonium nitrate. (5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM 01MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11271-11273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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