Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Extend the Target Date; Request for Supplemental Briefing, 22726-22728 [2011-9784]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 22726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Notices 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 (76 FR 8772, February 15, 2011). 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 September 28, 2011, and a public version will be 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 October 20, 2011, 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 October 12, 2011. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Apr 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 October 17, 2011, 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 incamera 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 October 11, 2011. 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 October 31, 2011; 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 October 31, 2011. On November 22, 2011, 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 November 29, 2011, 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 Fed. Reg. 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 reviewsare 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. By order of the Commission. Issued: April 18, 2011. James R. Holbein, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–9783 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–694] Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Extend the Target Date; Request for Supplemental Briefing U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to extend the target date for completion of the above-captioned investigation from April 18, 2011, to June 17, 2011. The Commission is requesting supplemental briefing from the public and from the parties to the investigation with respect to certain questions set forth below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–1999. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM 22APN1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Notices 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. Hearingimpaired 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 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 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 named 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. On December 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’). 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 found that the ‘592 patent was not proven to be invalid and that Pioneer has established a domestic industry under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). On February 23, 2011, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part. Target Date: The Commission has determined to extend the target date for completion of the investigation by sixty (60) days from April 18, 2011 to June 17, VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Apr 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 2011, to accommodate supplemental briefing. Supplemental Briefing Request: A domestic industry may be shown to exist, inter alia, by ‘‘substantial investment’’ in the ‘‘exploitation’’ of an asserted patent. 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). Such investment may take the form of ‘‘engineering, research and development, or licensing,’’ but other kinds of investments are not precluded. See Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337–TA–650, Comm’n Op. at 45 (Apr. 14, 2010). The following questions explore the domestic industry requirement in the context of a complainant that invests in licensing a patent portfolio, which includes the asserted patent among the licensed patents. (1) Assuming that the evidence in the record does not show the patent asserted in a section 337 investigation to have more or less value than the rest of the patents of a portfolio, to what extent should the Commission attribute total expenses in licensing the portfolio toward the complainant’s investment in exploitation of the asserted patent under section 337(a)(3)(C)? Please comment on whether the statute authorizes the Commission to allocate to the asserted patent the amount of the total expenses divided by the number of patents in the portfolio? (2) Assuming that the statute authorizes allocation of total licensing expenses across all of the patents in the portfolio, what is the significance of evidence demonstrating that at the time the licensing expenses were incurred, the complainant did or did not present information to potential licensees that the asserted patent was being practiced or infringed by the respondent or a third party? What is the significance of evidence showing that the asserted patent was more or less important or valuable than the others in the portfolio? What is the significance of evidence indicating that, while total expenses in licensing a portfolio may be substantial, the share of the expenses allocated to the asserted patent is not? (3) In light of any practical benefits of licensing a group of patents in a portfolio rather than licensing patents individually, does the statute permit expenses in the licensing of an entire portfolio to be considered an investment in the exploitation of the individual asserted patent? (4) How should licensing expenses and activities relating to (a) crosslicenses and (b) global portfolio licenses (i.e., U.S. and foreign patents) be treated under section 337(a)(3)(C)? PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 22727 (5) What is the nature and extent of the ‘‘nexus’’ between an asserted patent and a licensing expense or activity that is sufficient to prove that such expense or activity constitutes an investment in the asserted patent? What factors should be considered in determining whether the required nexus is established? What is the evidentiary showing required to prove a nexus between the asserted patent and the licensing activities and expenses in the context of a portfolio license? (6) Is a ‘‘nexus’’ between an asserted patent and a licensing activity sufficient to prove that expenses associated with that licensing activity are an investment in the asserted patent under section 337(a)(3)(C) even if other patents are involved? See ID at 165 (citing Certain 3G Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) Handsets and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA– 601, Order No. 20 (unreviewed ID) (June 24, 2010)). If a ‘‘nexus’’ is sufficient, is the strength of that nexus relevant in determining the amount of investment in the asserted patent(s)? For example, is the number of patents included in a license relevant in determining the amount of investment in an asserted patent(s) compared to the expenses generally associated with licensing all of the patents? Is the breadth of technology covered by the portfolio, as a whole, relative to the breadth of technology covered by the asserted patent(s) relevant in determining the amount of investment in the asserted patent(s)? (7) In Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA–586, the Commission noted that ‘‘the requirement for showing the existence of a domestic industry will depend on the industry in question, and the complainant’s relative size.’’ Comm’n Op. at 25–26 (May 16, 2008). Please comment on the appropriate context for determining whether a complainant’s investments in licensing a portfolio of patents, which includes the asserted patent, is ‘‘substantial’’ within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(C) in a particular industry? In other words, in determining whether appropriately identified investments in licensing the portfolio constitute a ‘‘substantial investment in [the asserted patent’s] exploitation’’ within the meaning of the statute, against what specific measure should those investments be assessed? In discussing the context for determining whether portfolio licensing investments are substantial, please discuss relevant factors, criteria, and evidence that should be considered in determining whether the complainant’s licensing investments are ‘‘substantial’’ in the E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM 22APN1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 22728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Notices context of a portfolio license. Please include in the discussion, how these factors, criteria, and evidence may vary depending on the industry in question and complainant’s relative size. (8) Please comment on the significance of whether and to what extent the complainant receives royalties under the license agreement or acquires other rights or benefits as a result of a portfolio license in assessing whether the complainant’s licensing expenses and activities constitute a ‘‘substantial investment in [the asserted patent’s] exploitation.’’ (9) Please comment on the significance of whether and to what extent a complainant engages in ancillary exploitation activities that frequently accompany licensing efforts, such as development, engineering, or servicing of licensed articles, in assessing whether a complainant has made a ‘‘substantial investment in [the asserted patent’s] exploitation’’ through licensing. (10) For the parties to the investigation only: a. Please cite and discuss the specific evidence of record in this investigation supporting your position as to each of the above questions. b. Assuming the licensing efforts of complainant Pioneer and Discovision Associaties are viewed together, to what extent did the expenses in licensing Pioneer’s navigation portfolio (before Pioneer retained outside counsel) represent Pioneer’s investment in licensing the asserted patents? Please support your response with citations to the record. c. Please comment on the weight that should be given to documents concerning complainant’s licensing activities and expenses from which information has been redacted. Please discuss the significance, vel non, of the content of the redacted documents to the complainant’s licensing activities and investments in view of such redactions. Parties to the investigation and members of the public are invited to file written submissions addressing the questions set forth above regarding the domestic industry requirement of section 337(a)(3)(C). Opening submissions of the parties to the investigation are due no later than May 3, 2011. A public version of these submissions must be filed with the Secretary no later than May 10, 2011. Reply submissions of the parties to the investigation are due no later than May 17, 2011. Written submissions from members of the public will be accepted anytime on or before May 17, 2011. No further submissions on these issues will VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Apr 21, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 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 210.42–50 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–50). By order of the Commission. Issued: April 18, 2011. James R. Holbein, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–9784 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; Alternative Method of Compliance for Certain SEPs pursuant to 29 CFR 2520.104–49 Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is soliciting comments on the proposed extension of the collection of information included in the alternative method of compliance for certain simplified employee pensions regulation (29 CFR 2520.104– 49). A copy of the information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual shown in the Addresses section of this notice or at http://www.RegInfo.gov. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the Addresses section on or before June 21, 2011. ADDRESSES: G. Christopher Cosby, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693–8410, FAX (202) 693–4745 (these are not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 110 of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe alternative methods of compliance with the reporting and disclosure requirements of Title I of ERISA for pension plans. Simplified employee pensions (SEPs) are established in section 408(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Although SEPs are primarily a development of the Code and subject to its requirements, SEPs are also pension plans subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of Title I of ERISA. The Department previously issued a regulation under the authority of section 110 of ERISA (29 CFR 2520.104–49) that intended to relieve sponsors of certain SEPs from ERISA’s Title I reporting and disclosure requirements by prescribing an alternative method of compliance. These SEPs are, for purposes of this Notice, referred to as ‘‘non-model’’ SEPs because they exclude (1) those SEPs which are created through use of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 5305–SEP, and (2) those SEPs in which the employer limits or influences the employees’ choice to IRAs into which employers’ contributions will be made and on which participant withdrawals are prohibited. The disclosure requirements in this regulation were developed in conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS Notice E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM 22APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22726-22728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9784]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-694]


Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, 
Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission 
Determination To Extend the Target Date; Request for Supplemental 
Briefing

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to extend the target date for completion of 
the above-captioned investigation from April 18, 2011, to June 17, 
2011. The Commission is requesting supplemental briefing from the 
public and from the parties to the investigation with respect to 
certain questions set forth below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-1999. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for

[[Page 22727]]

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 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 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 
named 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.
    On December 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his final initial 
determination (``ID''). 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 
found that the `592 patent was not proven to be invalid and that 
Pioneer has established a domestic industry under 19 U.S.C. 
1337(a)(3)(C). On February 23, 2011, the Commission determined to 
review the final ID in part.
    Target Date: The Commission has determined to extend the target 
date for completion of the investigation by sixty (60) days from April 
18, 2011 to June 17, 2011, to accommodate supplemental briefing.
    Supplemental Briefing Request: A domestic industry may be shown to 
exist, inter alia, by ``substantial investment'' in the 
``exploitation'' of an asserted patent. 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). Such 
investment may take the form of ``engineering, research and 
development, or licensing,'' but other kinds of investments are not 
precluded. See Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components Thereof 
and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-650, Comm'n Op. at 45 
(Apr. 14, 2010). The following questions explore the domestic industry 
requirement in the context of a complainant that invests in licensing a 
patent portfolio, which includes the asserted patent among the licensed 
patents.
    (1) Assuming that the evidence in the record does not show the 
patent asserted in a section 337 investigation to have more or less 
value than the rest of the patents of a portfolio, to what extent 
should the Commission attribute total expenses in licensing the 
portfolio toward the complainant's investment in exploitation of the 
asserted patent under section 337(a)(3)(C)? Please comment on whether 
the statute authorizes the Commission to allocate to the asserted 
patent the amount of the total expenses divided by the number of 
patents in the portfolio?
    (2) Assuming that the statute authorizes allocation of total 
licensing expenses across all of the patents in the portfolio, what is 
the significance of evidence demonstrating that at the time the 
licensing expenses were incurred, the complainant did or did not 
present information to potential licensees that the asserted patent was 
being practiced or infringed by the respondent or a third party? What 
is the significance of evidence showing that the asserted patent was 
more or less important or valuable than the others in the portfolio? 
What is the significance of evidence indicating that, while total 
expenses in licensing a portfolio may be substantial, the share of the 
expenses allocated to the asserted patent is not?
    (3) In light of any practical benefits of licensing a group of 
patents in a portfolio rather than licensing patents individually, does 
the statute permit expenses in the licensing of an entire portfolio to 
be considered an investment in the exploitation of the individual 
asserted patent?
    (4) How should licensing expenses and activities relating to (a) 
cross-licenses and (b) global portfolio licenses (i.e., U.S. and 
foreign patents) be treated under section 337(a)(3)(C)?
    (5) What is the nature and extent of the ``nexus'' between an 
asserted patent and a licensing expense or activity that is sufficient 
to prove that such expense or activity constitutes an investment in the 
asserted patent? What factors should be considered in determining 
whether the required nexus is established? What is the evidentiary 
showing required to prove a nexus between the asserted patent and the 
licensing activities and expenses in the context of a portfolio 
license?
    (6) Is a ``nexus'' between an asserted patent and a licensing 
activity sufficient to prove that expenses associated with that 
licensing activity are an investment in the asserted patent under 
section 337(a)(3)(C) even if other patents are involved? See ID at 165 
(citing Certain 3G Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) 
Handsets and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-601, Order No. 20 
(unreviewed ID) (June 24, 2010)). If a ``nexus'' is sufficient, is the 
strength of that nexus relevant in determining the amount of investment 
in the asserted patent(s)? For example, is the number of patents 
included in a license relevant in determining the amount of investment 
in an asserted patent(s) compared to the expenses generally associated 
with licensing all of the patents? Is the breadth of technology covered 
by the portfolio, as a whole, relative to the breadth of technology 
covered by the asserted patent(s) relevant in determining the amount of 
investment in the asserted patent(s)?
    (7) In Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components Thereof, 
Inv. No. 337-TA-586, the Commission noted that ``the requirement for 
showing the existence of a domestic industry will depend on the 
industry in question, and the complainant's relative size.'' Comm'n Op. 
at 25-26 (May 16, 2008). Please comment on the appropriate context for 
determining whether a complainant's investments in licensing a 
portfolio of patents, which includes the asserted patent, is 
``substantial'' within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(C) in a 
particular industry? In other words, in determining whether 
appropriately identified investments in licensing the portfolio 
constitute a ``substantial investment in [the asserted patent's] 
exploitation'' within the meaning of the statute, against what specific 
measure should those investments be assessed? In discussing the context 
for determining whether portfolio licensing investments are 
substantial, please discuss relevant factors, criteria, and evidence 
that should be considered in determining whether the complainant's 
licensing investments are ``substantial'' in the

[[Page 22728]]

context of a portfolio license. Please include in the discussion, how 
these factors, criteria, and evidence may vary depending on the 
industry in question and complainant's relative size.
    (8) Please comment on the significance of whether and to what 
extent the complainant receives royalties under the license agreement 
or acquires other rights or benefits as a result of a portfolio license 
in assessing whether the complainant's licensing expenses and 
activities constitute a ``substantial investment in [the asserted 
patent's] exploitation.''
    (9) Please comment on the significance of whether and to what 
extent a complainant engages in ancillary exploitation activities that 
frequently accompany licensing efforts, such as development, 
engineering, or servicing of licensed articles, in assessing whether a 
complainant has made a ``substantial investment in [the asserted 
patent's] exploitation'' through licensing.
    (10) For the parties to the investigation only:
    a. Please cite and discuss the specific evidence of record in this 
investigation supporting your position as to each of the above 
questions.
    b. Assuming the licensing efforts of complainant Pioneer and 
Discovision Associaties are viewed together, to what extent did the 
expenses in licensing Pioneer's navigation portfolio (before Pioneer 
retained outside counsel) represent Pioneer's investment in licensing 
the asserted patents? Please support your response with citations to 
the record.
    c. Please comment on the weight that should be given to documents 
concerning complainant's licensing activities and expenses from which 
information has been redacted. Please discuss the significance, vel 
non, of the content of the redacted documents to the complainant's 
licensing activities and investments in view of such redactions.
    Parties to the investigation and members of the public are invited 
to file written submissions addressing the questions set forth above 
regarding the domestic industry requirement of section 337(a)(3)(C). 
Opening submissions of the parties to the investigation are due no 
later than May 3, 2011. A public version of these submissions must be 
filed with the Secretary no later than May 10, 2011. Reply submissions 
of the parties to the investigation are due no later than May 17, 2011. 
Written submissions from members of the public will be accepted anytime 
on or before May 17, 2011. 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 submissions will be 
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and may 
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.
    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 210.42-50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-50).

    By order of the Commission.

     Issued: April 18, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-9784 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P