Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same Determination Not To Review ALJ Order Nos. 8 And 9; Termination of the Investigation Based on a Withdrawal of the Complaint, 35428-35429 [2012-14325]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
35428
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Notices
based on withdrawal of infringement
allegations on July 12, 2011.
The presiding administrative law
judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued the final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) on violation in this
investigation on December 20, 2011. He
issued his recommended determination
on remedy and bonding on the same
day. The ALJ found that a violation of
section 337 has occurred in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, or the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain mobile devices, associated
software, and components thereof
containing same by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims 1,
2, 5 and 6 of the ‘566 patent. Both
Complainant and Respondent filed
timely petitions for review of various
portions of the final ID, as well as timely
responses to the petitions.
The Commission determined to
review various portions of the final ID
and issued a Notice to that effect dated
March 2, 2012. 77 FR 14043 (Mar. 8,
2012). In the Notice, the Commission
also set a schedule for the filing of
written submissions on the issues under
review, including certain questions
posed by the Commission, and on
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. The parties have briefed, with
initial and reply submissions, the issues
under review and the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Public
interest comments were also received
from non-parties Association for
Competitive Technology, Inc. and
Google Inc.
On review, the Commission has
determined as follows.
(1) To affirm with modifications the
ALJ’s determination that Microsoft met
the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement with respect to all
of the presently asserted patents in this
investigation, i.e., the ‘352 patent, the
‘762 patent, the ‘910 patent, the ‘376
patent, the ‘133 patent, the ‘054 patent,
and the ‘566 patent;
(2) With respect to the ID’s
determination regarding the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement with respect to all of the
presently asserted patents:
(a) To affirm with modifications the
ALJ’s determination that Microsoft
failed to meet the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ‘054 patent;
(b) To affirm the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft satisfied the technical
prong of the domestic industry
requirement with respect to the ‘566,
‘133, and ‘910 patents;
(c) To reverse the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to meet the
technical prong of the domestic industry
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Jun 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
requirement with respect to the ‘352
patent;
(d) To affirm the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to meet the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement with respect to the ‘762 and
‘376 patents;
(3) To affirm with modifications the
ALJ’s determination that the asserted
claims of the ‘566 patent are not invalid
due to anticipation or obviousness;
(4) To reverse the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to carry its burden
of showing that Motorola’s accused
products infringe the asserted claims of
the ‘352 patent and determine that,
based on the record, Microsoft proved
by a preponderance of the evidence that
Motorola’s accused products directly
infringe the ‘352 patent;
(5) To affirm the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that
Motorola induced infringement of each
of the ‘054, ‘762, ‘376, ‘133, and ‘910
patents, and to affirm with
modifications the ALJ’s determination
that Microsoft failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that
Motorola induced infringement of each
of the ‘566 and ‘352 patents.
The Commission has determined that
the appropriate form of relief in this
investigation is a limited exclusion
order prohibiting the unlicensed entry
for consumption of mobile devices,
associated software and components
thereof covered by claims 1, 2, 5, or 6
of the United States Patent No.
6,370,566 and that are manufactured
abroad by or on behalf of, or imported
by or on behalf of, Motorola. The order
provides an exception for service,
repair, or replacement articles for use in
servicing, repairing, or replacing mobile
devices under warranty or insurance
contract.
The Commission has further
determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1)
(19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude
issuance of the limited exclusion order.
Finally, the Commission determined
that Motorola is required to post a bond
set at a reasonable royalty rate in the
amount of $0.33 per device entered for
consumption during the period of
Presidential review. The Commission’s
order was delivered to the President and
the United States Trade Representative
on the day of its issuance.
The Commission has therefore
terminated this investigation. 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 sections
210.41–.42, 210.50 of the Commission’s
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.41–.42, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 18, 2012.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–14321 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–814]
Certain Automotive GPS Navigation
Systems, Components Thereof, and
Products Containing Same
Determination Not To Review ALJ
Order Nos. 8 And 9; Termination of the
Investigation Based on a Withdrawal of
the Complaint
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) Order No. 8 denying a
motion for a show cause order and an
initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No.
9) terminating the investigation based
on complainant’s withdrawal of the
complaint.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean
Jackson, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3104. 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 https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on November 23, 2011, based on a
complaint filed by Beacon Navigation
GmbH of Zug, Switzerland (‘‘Beacon’’).
76 FR 72443 (Nov. 23, 2011). The
complaint alleged violations of section
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Notices
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 automotive GPS navigation
systems, components thereof, and
products containing the same by reason
of infringement of certain claims of
United States Patent Nos. 6,374,180;
6,178,380; 6,029,111; and 5,862,511.
The notice of investigation named as
respondents Audi AG of Ingolstadt,
Germany; Audi of America, Inc. of
Auburn Hills, Michigan; Audi of
America, LLC of Herndon, Virginia;
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG of
Munich, Germany; BMW of North
America, LLC of Woodcliff Lake, New
Jersey; BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC of
Greer, South Carolina; Chrysler Group
LLC of Auburn Hills, Michigan; Ford
Motor Company of Dearborn, Michigan;
General Motors Company of Detroit,
Michigan; Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Of
Tokyo, Japan; Honda North America,
Inc. an American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
both of Torrance, California; Honda
Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC of
Lincoln, Alabama; Honda
Manufacturing of Indiana, LLC of
Greensburg, Indiana; Honda of America
Manufacturing, Inc. of Marysville, Ohio;
Hyundai Motor Company of Seoul,
South Korea; Hyundai Motor America of
Fountain Valley, California; Hyundai
Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC of
Montgomery, Alabama; Kia Motors
Corp. of Seoul, South Korea; Kia Motors
America, Inc. of Irvine, California; Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. of
West Point, Georgia; Mazda Motor
Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan; Mazda
Motor of America, Inc. of Irvine,
California; Daimler AG of Stuttgart,
Germany; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC of
Montvale, New Jersey; Mercedes-Benz
U.S. International, Inc. of Vance,
Alabama; Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of
Yokohama-shi, Japan; Nissan North
America, Inc. of Franklin, Tennessee;
Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG of Stuttgart,
Germany; Porsche Cars North America,
Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia; Saab
Automobile AB of Trollhattan, Sweden;
Saab Cars North America, Inc. of Royal
Oak, Michigan; Suzuki Motor
Corporation of Hamamatsu City, Japan;
American Suzuki Motor Corporation of
Brea, California; Jaguar Land Rover
North America, LLC of Mahwah, New
Jersey; Jaguar Cars Limited of Coventry,
United Kingdom; Land Rover of
Warwickshire, United Kingdom; Toyota
Motor Corporation of Toyota City,
Japan; Toyota Motor North America,
Inc. of Torrance, California; Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Jun 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
North America, Inc. of Erlanger,
Kentucky; Toyota Motor Manufacturing,
Indiana, Inc. of Princeton, Indiana;
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky,
Inc. of Georgetown, Kentucky; Toyota
Motor Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc.
of Blue Springs, Mississippi;
Volkswagen AG of Wolfsburg, Germany;
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen Group of America
Chattanooga Operations, LLC, both of
Herndon, Virginia; Volvo Car
Corporation of Goteborg, Sweden; and
Volvo Cars of North America, LLC of
Rockleigh, New Jersey.
On February 29, 2012, the
Commission determined not to review
an ID amending the complaint and
notice of investigation to terminate
General Motors Company from the
investigation and replace it with
General Motors LLC of Detroit,
Michigan. 77 FR 13350 (Mar. 6, 2012).
Complainant filed a motion to
withdraw its complaint on April 13,
2012. On April 20, 2012, the
respondents stated that they did not
oppose the motion to terminate, but
requested that the motion not be granted
until it was determined if Beacon
violated Commission Rules
210.12(a)(9)(iii) and/or 210.4(c)
concerning the veracity of licensing
information in its complaint. On the
same day, respondents filed a motion
requesting that the ALJ sua sponte issue
a show cause order directing Beacon
and its counsel to (1) identify all
licensees that Beacon and its counsel
are currently aware of and knew of at
the time the Complaint was filed, (2)
provide details of Beacon’s pre-filing
investigation, and (3) show cause why
Beacon did not violate Commission
Rule 210.4(c) by identifying only
MiTAC International Inc. (‘‘MiTAC’’) as
a licensed entity.
On May 8, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID
(Order No. 8) denying the motion for a
sua sponte show cause order, as well as
two other motions to recover from
complainant costs incurred in preparing
for cancelled depositions. On the same
day, the ALJ issued Order No. 9, an ID
granting complainant’s motion to
terminate the investigation based on a
withdrawal of the complaint.
On May 15, 2012, several respondents
filed a joint petition for review of both
orders, arguing that there is a split in
Commission precedent concerning the
application of the safe harbor provision,
which is at issue in Order 8. They
petitioned for review of Order 9 to
enable the Commission to grant the
relief sought with respect to Order No.
8. Petitioners do not oppose termination
of the investigation on any other
ground. On May 22, 2012, the
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35429
Commission investigative attorney and
the complainant each filed a response in
opposition to the petition.
Upon consideration of the petition
and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined not to
review either ALJ Order. The
Commission does not agree that there is
a split in Commission precedent
regarding application of the safe harbor
provision of 19 CFR 210.4(d)(1). The
Commission investigations cited by
petitioners each represent the exercise
of discretion by the presiding ALJ in
determining whether to issue a show
cause order. See Certain Point of Sale
Terminals and Components Thereof,
Inv. No. 337–TA–524, Order No. 40
(April 11, 2005); Certain Weather
Stations and Components Thereof, Inv.
No. 337–TA–537, Order No. 8 (Oct. 12,
2005); and Certain Insulin Delivery
Devices, Inv. No. 337–TA–572, Order
No. 5 (Jan. 29, 2007).
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 210.21 and 210.42(h) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 7, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–14325 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–12–016]
Sunshine Act Meeting
United
States International Trade Commission.
DATES: Time and Date: June 20, 2012 at
9:15 a.m.
PLACE: Room 100, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731–TA–865–867
(Second Review)(Stainless Steel ButtWeld Fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and
the Philippines). The Commission is
currently scheduled to transmit its
determinations and Commissioners’
opinions to the Secretary of Commerce
on or before June 29, 2012.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35428-35429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14325]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-814]
Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems, Components Thereof,
and Products Containing Same Determination Not To Review ALJ Order Nos.
8 And 9; Termination of the Investigation Based on a Withdrawal of the
Complaint
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative
law judge's (``ALJ'') Order No. 8 denying a motion for a show cause
order and an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 9) terminating
the investigation based on complainant's withdrawal of the complaint.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Jackson, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3104. 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 https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202)
205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on November 23, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Beacon Navigation
GmbH of Zug, Switzerland (``Beacon''). 76 FR 72443 (Nov. 23, 2011). The
complaint alleged violations of section
[[Page 35429]]
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 automotive
GPS navigation systems, components thereof, and products containing the
same by reason of infringement of certain claims of United States
Patent Nos. 6,374,180; 6,178,380; 6,029,111; and 5,862,511.
The notice of investigation named as respondents Audi AG of
Ingolstadt, Germany; Audi of America, Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan;
Audi of America, LLC of Herndon, Virginia; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
of Munich, Germany; BMW of North America, LLC of Woodcliff Lake, New
Jersey; BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC of Greer, South Carolina; Chrysler
Group LLC of Auburn Hills, Michigan; Ford Motor Company of Dearborn,
Michigan; General Motors Company of Detroit, Michigan; Honda Motor Co.,
Ltd. Of Tokyo, Japan; Honda North America, Inc. an American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., both of Torrance, California; Honda Manufacturing of
Alabama, LLC of Lincoln, Alabama; Honda Manufacturing of Indiana, LLC
of Greensburg, Indiana; Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. of
Marysville, Ohio; Hyundai Motor Company of Seoul, South Korea; Hyundai
Motor America of Fountain Valley, California; Hyundai Motor
Manufacturing Alabama, LLC of Montgomery, Alabama; Kia Motors Corp. of
Seoul, South Korea; Kia Motors America, Inc. of Irvine, California; Kia
Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. of West Point, Georgia; Mazda Motor
Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan; Mazda Motor of America, Inc. of
Irvine, California; Daimler AG of Stuttgart, Germany; Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC of Montvale, New Jersey; Mercedes-Benz U.S. International,
Inc. of Vance, Alabama; Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Yokohama-shi, Japan;
Nissan North America, Inc. of Franklin, Tennessee; Dr. Ing. H.c. F.
Porsche AG of Stuttgart, Germany; Porsche Cars North America, Inc. of
Atlanta, Georgia; Saab Automobile AB of Trollhattan, Sweden; Saab Cars
North America, Inc. of Royal Oak, Michigan; Suzuki Motor Corporation of
Hamamatsu City, Japan; American Suzuki Motor Corporation of Brea,
California; Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC of Mahwah, New Jersey;
Jaguar Cars Limited of Coventry, United Kingdom; Land Rover of
Warwickshire, United Kingdom; Toyota Motor Corporation of Toyota City,
Japan; Toyota Motor North America, Inc. of Torrance, California; Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. of Erlanger,
Kentucky; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. of Princeton,
Indiana; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. of Georgetown,
Kentucky; Toyota Motor Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc. of Blue Springs,
Mississippi; Volkswagen AG of Wolfsburg, Germany; Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. and Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations,
LLC, both of Herndon, Virginia; Volvo Car Corporation of Goteborg,
Sweden; and Volvo Cars of North America, LLC of Rockleigh, New Jersey.
On February 29, 2012, the Commission determined not to review an ID
amending the complaint and notice of investigation to terminate General
Motors Company from the investigation and replace it with General
Motors LLC of Detroit, Michigan. 77 FR 13350 (Mar. 6, 2012).
Complainant filed a motion to withdraw its complaint on April 13,
2012. On April 20, 2012, the respondents stated that they did not
oppose the motion to terminate, but requested that the motion not be
granted until it was determined if Beacon violated Commission Rules
210.12(a)(9)(iii) and/or 210.4(c) concerning the veracity of licensing
information in its complaint. On the same day, respondents filed a
motion requesting that the ALJ sua sponte issue a show cause order
directing Beacon and its counsel to (1) identify all licensees that
Beacon and its counsel are currently aware of and knew of at the time
the Complaint was filed, (2) provide details of Beacon's pre-filing
investigation, and (3) show cause why Beacon did not violate Commission
Rule 210.4(c) by identifying only MiTAC International Inc. (``MiTAC'')
as a licensed entity.
On May 8, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 8) denying the
motion for a sua sponte show cause order, as well as two other motions
to recover from complainant costs incurred in preparing for cancelled
depositions. On the same day, the ALJ issued Order No. 9, an ID
granting complainant's motion to terminate the investigation based on a
withdrawal of the complaint.
On May 15, 2012, several respondents filed a joint petition for
review of both orders, arguing that there is a split in Commission
precedent concerning the application of the safe harbor provision,
which is at issue in Order 8. They petitioned for review of Order 9 to
enable the Commission to grant the relief sought with respect to Order
No. 8. Petitioners do not oppose termination of the investigation on
any other ground. On May 22, 2012, the Commission investigative
attorney and the complainant each filed a response in opposition to the
petition.
Upon consideration of the petition and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined not to review either ALJ Order. The
Commission does not agree that there is a split in Commission precedent
regarding application of the safe harbor provision of 19 CFR
210.4(d)(1). The Commission investigations cited by petitioners each
represent the exercise of discretion by the presiding ALJ in
determining whether to issue a show cause order. See Certain Point of
Sale Terminals and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-524, Order No.
40 (April 11, 2005); Certain Weather Stations and Components Thereof,
Inv. No. 337-TA-537, Order No. 8 (Oct. 12, 2005); and Certain Insulin
Delivery Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-572, Order No. 5 (Jan. 29, 2007).
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 210.21 and 210.42(h) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 7, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-14325 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
