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
<![CDATA[
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 https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this
investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov. 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 https://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
https://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 https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the
Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202)
205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted 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 https://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
