Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation, 76040-76042 [2015-30733]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
76040
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Notices
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 1, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–30734 Filed 12–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–973]
Certain Wearable Activity Tracking
Devices, Systems, and Components
Thereof; Institution of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that a
complaint was filed with the U.S.
International Trade Commission on
November 2, 2015, under section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Fitbit, Inc. of
San Francisco, California. The
complaint alleges violations of section
337 based upon the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain wearable
activity tracking devices, systems, and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 8,920,332 (‘‘the ’332 patent’’);
U.S. Patent No. 8,868,377 (‘‘the ’377
patent’’); and U.S. Patent No. 9,089,760
(‘‘the ’760 patent’’). The complaint
further alleges that an industry in the
United States exists as required by
subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the
Commission institute an investigation
and, after the investigation, issue a
limited exclusion order and cease and
desist orders.
ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for
any confidential information contained
therein, is 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., Room
112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons
with mobility impairments who will
need special assistance in gaining access
to the Commission should contact the
Office of the Secretary at (202) 205–
2000. General information concerning
the Commission may also be obtained
by accessing its Internet server at
https://www.usitc.gov. The public record
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Dec 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
for this investigation may be viewed on
the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
telephone (202) 205–2560.
Authority: The authority for
institution of this investigation is
contained in section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, and in section
210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10
(2015).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
December 1, 2015, ordered that—
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, an investigation be instituted
to determine whether there is a
violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation of certain wearable activity
tracking devices, systems, and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims 1,
4, 5, and 13–17 of the ’332 patent;
claims 1–4, 7–11, 16, 25, 27, and 28 of
the ’377 patent; claims 1–15 and 18–21
of the ’760 patent, and whether an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337;
(2) For the purpose of the
investigation so instituted, the following
are hereby named as parties upon which
this notice of investigation shall be
served:
(a) The complainant is: Fitbit, Inc.,
405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.
(b) The respondents are the following
entities alleged to be in violation of
section 337, and are the parties upon
which the complaint is to be served:
AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone, 99 Rhode
Island Street, 3rd Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94103.
BodyMedia, Inc., Union Trust Building,
501 Grant Street, Suite 1075,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite
401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted,
the Chief Administrative Law Judge,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
shall designate the presiding
Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the
notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondents in
accordance with section 210.13 of the
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to
19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such
responses will be considered by the
Commission if received not later than 20
days after the date of service by the
Commission of the complaint and the
notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of
investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely
response to each allegation in the
complaint and in this notice may be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
right to appear and contest the
allegations of the complaint and this
notice, and to authorize the
administrative law judge and the
Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as
alleged in the complaint and this notice
and to enter an initial determination
and a final determination containing
such findings, and may result in the
issuance of an exclusion order or a cease
and desist order or both directed against
the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 1, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–30732 Filed 12–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–921]
Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices,
Including Downscan and Sidescan
Devices, Products Containing the
Same, and Components Thereof;
Commission’s Final Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order
and a Cease and Desist Order;
Termination of the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has found a violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this
investigation and has issued a limited
exclusion order prohibiting respondents
Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin
USA, Inc., both of Olathe, Kansas, and
Garmin (Asia) Corporation of New
Taipei City, Taiwan (collectively,
‘‘Garmin’’), from importing certain
marine sonar imaging devices, including
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Notices
downscan and sidescan devices,
products containing the same, and
components thereof that infringe certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840
(‘‘the ’840 patent’’) and 8,605,550 (‘‘the
’550 patent’’). The Commission has also
issued a cease and desist order against
Garmin prohibiting the sale and
distribution within the United States of
articles that infringe certain claims of
the ’840 and ’550 patents. The
Commission has found no violation
based on U.S. Patent No. 8,300,499 (‘‘the
’499 patent’’). The investigation is
terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3438. 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 (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 July 14, 2014, based on a complaint
filed by Navico, Inc. of Tulsa,
Oklahoma, and Navico Holding AS, of
Egersund, Norway (collectively,
‘‘Navico’’). 79 FR 40778 (July 14, 2014).
The complaint alleged violations of
section 337 by reason of the importation
into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain marine sonar imaging devices,
including downscan and sidescan
devices, products containing the same,
and components thereof. Id. The
complaint alleged the infringement of
certain claims of the ’840, ’499, and ’550
patents. Id. The notice of investigation
named Garmin and Garmin North
America, Inc. as respondents. Id. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(‘‘OUII’’) was also named as a party. Id.
The Commission later terminated the
investigation as to Garmin North
America, Inc. and various of the
asserted claims. Notice (Dec. 31, 2014)
(determining not to review Order No. 10
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Dec 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
(Dec. 2, 2014)); Notice (Jan. 9, 2015)
(determining not to review Order No. 11
(Dec. 11, 2014)); Notice (Jan. 13, 2015)
(determining not to review Order No. 13
(Dec. 17, 2014)).
On March 3, 2015, the Commission
determined on summary determination
that Navico satisfied the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the ’840 and ’499
patents and the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the
’840 and ’550 patents. Notice (Mar. 3,
2015) (determining not to review Order
No. 14 (Jan. 29, 2015) and Order No. 15
(Jan. 30, 2015)).
On July 2, 2015, the ALJ issued a final
initial determination (‘‘ID’’) finding no
violation of section 337 with respect to
all three asserted patents. Specifically,
the ALJ found that the asserted claims
of each patent are not infringed and
were not shown to be invalid for
anticipation or obviousness. The ALJ
found that the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement was not
satisfied with respect to the ’550 patent.
The ALJ also issued a recommended
determination on remedy and bonding
(‘‘RD’’), recommending, if the
Commission finds a section 337
violation, that a limited exclusion order
and a cease and desist order should
issue and that a bond should be
imposed at a reasonable royalty of eight
percent for each infringing device
imported during the period of
presidential review.
On July 20, 2015, Navico and OUII
filed petitions for review challenging
various findings in the final ID, and
Garmin filed a contingent petition for
review. On July 28, 2015, the parties
filed responses to the various petitions.
On August 5, 2015, Navico and Garmin
filed post-RD statements on the public
interest under Commission Rule
210.50(a)(4). The Commission did not
receive any post-RD public interest
comments from the public. See 80 FR
39799 (July 10, 2015).
On September 3, 2015, the
Commission determined to review the
final ID in part and requested additional
briefing from the parties on certain
issues. 80 FR 54592 (Sept. 10, 2015).
Specifically, the Commission
determined to review (1) the ALJ’s
construction of the limitation ‘‘single
linear downscan transducer element’’
recited in claims 1 and 23 of the ’840
patent (and its variants in the ’499 and
’550 patents); (2) the ALJ’s construction
of the limitation ‘‘combine’’ (and its
variants) recited in claims 1, 24, and 43
of the ’499 patent; (3) the ALJ’s findings
of noninfringement with respect to the
three asserted patents; (4) the ALJ’s
findings of validity with respect to the
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76041
three asserted patents; and (5) the ALJ’s
finding regarding the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ’550 patent. Id. The
Commission also solicited briefing from
the parties and the public on the issues
of remedy, bonding, and the public
interest. Id.
On September 14, 2015, the parties
filed initial written submissions
addressing the Commission’s questions
and remedy, bonding, and the public
interest. On September 21, 2015, the
parties filed response briefs. No
comments were received from the
public.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the final ID and
the parties’ submissions, the
Commission has determined that Navico
has proven a violation of section 337
based on infringement of claims 1, 5, 7,
9, 11, 16–19, 23, 32, 39–41, 63, and 70–
72 of the ’840 patent and infringement
of claims 32 and 44 of the ’550 patent.
The Commission has determined to
modify the ALJ’s construction of certain
terms in the asserted claims of the
asserted patents, including ‘‘single
linear downscan transducer element’’
recited in the ’840 patent and its
variants recited in the ’550 and ’499
patents. Under the modified
constructions, the Commission has
determined Navico has proven that (i)
the accused Garmin echo products,
echoMAP products, and GPSMAP
products with their respective
transducers infringe claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11,
16–19, 23, 32, 39–41, and 70–72 of the
’840 patent; (ii) the accused Garmin
echoMAP products and GPSMAP
products with their respective
transducers infringe claim 63 of the ’840
patent; (iii) the accused Garmin GCV10
and GSD25 sonar modules with their
respective transducers infringe claims 1,
5, 9, 11, 23, and 32 of the ’840 patent;
(iv) the accused Garmin GT30
transducer, which comes with the
GCV10 sonar module, infringes claims
1, 7, 12, 13, and 57 of the ’550 patent;
and (v) the accused Garmin GT30
transducer, in conjunction with the
GCV10 sonar module, infringes claims
32 and 44 of the ’550 patent. The
Commission has determined Garmin has
not proven that the asserted claims of
the ’840 patent are invalid. The
Commission has determined that
Garmin has proven that claims 1, 7, 12,
13, and 57 of the ’550 patent are invalid
as obvious, but that Garmin has not
proven that claims 32 and 44 of the ’550
patent are invalid. The Commission has
also determined that Navico has proven
that a domestic industry exists in the
United States for the ’550 patent.
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
76042
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Notices
The Commission has determined that
Navico has not proven a violation with
respect to the ’499 patent. The
Commission has determined to adopt,
on modified grounds, the ALJ’s
construction of the term ‘‘combining’’
(and its variants) recited in the asserted
claims of the ’499 patent. Under that
construction, the Commission has
determined that the asserted claims are
not invalid and not infringed.
The Commission has determined the
appropriate remedy is a limited
exclusion order and a cease and desist
order prohibiting Garmin from
importing into the United States or
selling or distributing within the United
States certain marine sonar imaging
devices, including downscan and
sidescan devices, products containing
the same, and components thereof that
infringe the asserted claims of the ’840
and ’550 patents. The Commission has
determined the public interest factors
enumerated in section 337(d)(1) and
(f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the
limited exclusion order or cease and
desist order.
Finally, the Commission has
determined to apply a bond in the
amount of 100 percent of the entered
value of excluded products imported
during the period of Presidential review
(19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission’s
order and opinion were delivered to the
President and to the United States Trade
Representative on the day of their
issuance.
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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 1, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–30733 Filed 12–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—National Spectrum
Consortium
Notice is hereby given that, on
October 22, 2015, pursuant to Section
6(a) of the National Cooperative
Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),
National Spectrum Consortium (‘‘NSC’’)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Dec 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
has filed written notifications
simultaneously with the Attorney
General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing changes in its
membership. The notifications were
filed for the purpose of extending the
Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, Alion Science and
Technology Corporation, Rome, NY; All
Purpose Networks LLC, Dover, NJ;
Altagrove LLC, Herndon, VA; ANDRO
Computational Solutions, LLC, Rome,
NY; Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ; Astrapi Corporation, Dallas, TX;
AT&T, Inc., Vienna, VA; ATDI
Government Services, LLC, McLean,
VA; BAE Systems Information and
Electronic Systems Integration, Inc.,
Nashua, NH; Battelle Energy Alliance,
LLC, Idaho Falls, ID; Black River
Systems Company, Inc., Utica, NY;
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT;
Chesapeake Technology International
Corporation, California, MD; CIPHIR–
TM, LLC, Charleston, SC; Cognitive
Radio Technologies, LLC, Lynchburg,
VA; CommScope Technologies, LLC,
Ashburn, VA; Constellation Data
Systems, Inc., Cincinnati, OH; Creative
Digital Systems Integration, Inc., Simi
Valley, CA; CRFS, Inc., Falls Church,
VA; Cubic Defense Applications, Inc.,
San Diego, CA; Darkblade Systems
Corporation, Stafford, VA; Disney/ABC
TV Group, New York, NY; DRS Signal
Solutions, Inc., Germantown, MD;
Exelis, Inc., Clifton, NJ; Expression
Networks LLC, McLean, VA; Federated
Wireless, Arlington, VA; Florida
International University, Miami, FL;
Foundry, Inc., Millersville, MD; Genesys
Technologies Ltd., Langhorne, PA;
Georgia Tech Applied Research
Corporation, Atlanta, GA; GIRD
Systems, Inc., Cincinnati, OH; Gonzaga
University, Spokane, WA; Haigh-Farr,
Inc, Bedford, NH; Harris Corporation,
Melbourne, FL; Honeywell
International, Inc., Morris Township,
NJ; Hughes Network Systems LLC,
Germantown, MD ICF Incorporated,
LLC, Fairfax, VA; IJK Controls LLC,
Dallas, TX; InCadence Strategic
Solutions, Manassas, VA; Infinite
Dimensions Integration, Inc.,
Alexandria, VA; Intelligent Automation,
Inc., Rockville, MD; InterDigital
Communications, Wilmington, DE;
Kerberos International, Inc., Temple,
TX; Kestrel Corporation, Albuquerque,
NM; Key Bridge Global LLC d/b/a Key
Bridge LLC, McLean, VA; Keysight
Technologies, Inc, Santa Rosa, CA;
KinetX, Inc., Tempe, AZ; Kranze
Technology Solutions, Inc., Prospect
Heights, IL; L3 Communications, San
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Diego, CA; L3 Communications Systems
West, Salt Lake City, UT; L3
Communications Telemetry West, San
Diego, CA; Laulima Systems, Kalaheo,
HI; LGS Innovations, Herndon, VA;
LHC2 Inc. d/b/a Eigen Wireless, Liberty
Lake, WA; Lockheed Martin
Corporation, Cherry Hill, NJ; LS telcom
Inc., Bowie, MD; Metric Systems
Corporation, Vista, CA; MontereyNouveau & Associates, LLC, Dayton,
OH; Nokia Networks, Irving, TX;
Northrop Grumman Systems
Corporation, Electronic Systems,
Linthicum Heights, MD; Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL; NTS Technical
Systems, Calabasas, CA; Oceanit
Laboratories, Inc., Honolulu, HI; Oceus
Networks, Inc., Reston, VA; Optical
Filter Corp d/b/a Corning Specialty
Materials, Keene, NH; Pathfinder
Wireless Corp, Seattle, WA; Perceptix
LLC, Washington, DC; Physical Optics
Corporation, Torrance, CA; Pirhonen,
Riku P. d/b/a The Research Armadillo,
Flower Mound, TX; Planned Systems
International, Inc., Columbia, MD;
PrioriTech, Inc., State College, PA;
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN;
Raytheon Company, El Segundo, CA;
Roberson and Associates LLC, Chicago,
IL; Rockwell Collins, Inc., Cedar Rapids,
IA; RWC, LLC, Annapolis, MD; S2
Corporation, Bozeman, MT; SA
Photonics, Inc., Los Gatos, CA; Sage
Management Enterprise, LLC, Columbia,
MD; SENTEL Corporation, Alexandria,
VA; Shared Spectrum Company,
Vienna, VA; Shenandoah Research and
Technology, LLC, Mount Jackson, VA;
SI2 Technologies, Inc., N. Billerica, MA;
Signal Hound, Inc., La Center, WA;
Silvus Technologies, Inc., Los Angeles,
CA; Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, TX; Spectronn, Holmdel, NJ;
SpectrumFi, Sunnyvale, CA; SRI
International, Menlo Park, CA; SSC
Innovations LLC, Vienna, VA; Stevens
Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ;
The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo,
CA; The Charles Stark Draper
Laboratory, Inc., Cambridge, MA; The
John Hopkins University Applied
Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD; The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH;
Trabus Technologies, Inc., San Diego,
CA; TrellisWare Technologies, Inc., San
Diego, CA; TriaSys Technologies
Corporation, N. Billerica, MA; Under
the Grid, LLC, Pacific Grove, CA;
University of Arizona—Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Tucson, AZ;
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL;
University of Mississippi, University,
MS; University of Notre Dame, Notre
Dame, IN; University of Southern
California Information Sciences
Institute, Marina Del Ray, CA;
E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM
07DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76040-76042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30733]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-921]
Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and
Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof;
Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order;
Termination of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation and has issued
a limited exclusion order prohibiting respondents Garmin International,
Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc., both of Olathe, Kansas, and Garmin (Asia)
Corporation of New Taipei City, Taiwan (collectively, ``Garmin''), from
importing certain marine sonar imaging devices, including
[[Page 76041]]
downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and
components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
8,305,840 (``the '840 patent'') and 8,605,550 (``the '550 patent'').
The Commission has also issued a cease and desist order against Garmin
prohibiting the sale and distribution within the United States of
articles that infringe certain claims of the '840 and '550 patents. The
Commission has found no violation based on U.S. Patent No. 8,300,499
(``the '499 patent''). The investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3438. 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 (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 July 14, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Navico, Inc. of Tulsa,
Oklahoma, and Navico Holding AS, of Egersund, Norway (collectively,
``Navico''). 79 FR 40778 (July 14, 2014). The complaint alleged
violations of section 337 by reason of the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain marine sonar imaging devices, including
downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and
components thereof. Id. The complaint alleged the infringement of
certain claims of the '840, '499, and '550 patents. Id. The notice of
investigation named Garmin and Garmin North America, Inc. as
respondents. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'')
was also named as a party. Id. The Commission later terminated the
investigation as to Garmin North America, Inc. and various of the
asserted claims. Notice (Dec. 31, 2014) (determining not to review
Order No. 10 (Dec. 2, 2014)); Notice (Jan. 9, 2015) (determining not to
review Order No. 11 (Dec. 11, 2014)); Notice (Jan. 13, 2015)
(determining not to review Order No. 13 (Dec. 17, 2014)).
On March 3, 2015, the Commission determined on summary
determination that Navico satisfied the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement for the '840 and '499 patents and the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '840 and '550
patents. Notice (Mar. 3, 2015) (determining not to review Order No. 14
(Jan. 29, 2015) and Order No. 15 (Jan. 30, 2015)).
On July 2, 2015, the ALJ issued a final initial determination
(``ID'') finding no violation of section 337 with respect to all three
asserted patents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the asserted claims
of each patent are not infringed and were not shown to be invalid for
anticipation or obviousness. The ALJ found that the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement was not satisfied with respect to the
'550 patent. The ALJ also issued a recommended determination on remedy
and bonding (``RD''), recommending, if the Commission finds a section
337 violation, that a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist
order should issue and that a bond should be imposed at a reasonable
royalty of eight percent for each infringing device imported during the
period of presidential review.
On July 20, 2015, Navico and OUII filed petitions for review
challenging various findings in the final ID, and Garmin filed a
contingent petition for review. On July 28, 2015, the parties filed
responses to the various petitions. On August 5, 2015, Navico and
Garmin filed post-RD statements on the public interest under Commission
Rule 210.50(a)(4). The Commission did not receive any post-RD public
interest comments from the public. See 80 FR 39799 (July 10, 2015).
On September 3, 2015, the Commission determined to review the final
ID in part and requested additional briefing from the parties on
certain issues. 80 FR 54592 (Sept. 10, 2015). Specifically, the
Commission determined to review (1) the ALJ's construction of the
limitation ``single linear downscan transducer element'' recited in
claims 1 and 23 of the '840 patent (and its variants in the '499 and
'550 patents); (2) the ALJ's construction of the limitation ``combine''
(and its variants) recited in claims 1, 24, and 43 of the '499 patent;
(3) the ALJ's findings of noninfringement with respect to the three
asserted patents; (4) the ALJ's findings of validity with respect to
the three asserted patents; and (5) the ALJ's finding regarding the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the
'550 patent. Id. The Commission also solicited briefing from the
parties and the public on the issues of remedy, bonding, and the public
interest. Id.
On September 14, 2015, the parties filed initial written
submissions addressing the Commission's questions and remedy, bonding,
and the public interest. On September 21, 2015, the parties filed
response briefs. No comments were received from the public.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
final ID and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined
that Navico has proven a violation of section 337 based on infringement
of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16-19, 23, 32, 39-41, 63, and 70-72 of the
'840 patent and infringement of claims 32 and 44 of the '550 patent.
The Commission has determined to modify the ALJ's construction of
certain terms in the asserted claims of the asserted patents, including
``single linear downscan transducer element'' recited in the '840
patent and its variants recited in the '550 and '499 patents. Under the
modified constructions, the Commission has determined Navico has proven
that (i) the accused Garmin echo products, echoMAP products, and GPSMAP
products with their respective transducers infringe claims 1, 5, 7, 9,
11, 16-19, 23, 32, 39-41, and 70-72 of the '840 patent; (ii) the
accused Garmin echoMAP products and GPSMAP products with their
respective transducers infringe claim 63 of the '840 patent; (iii) the
accused Garmin GCV10 and GSD25 sonar modules with their respective
transducers infringe claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 23, and 32 of the '840 patent;
(iv) the accused Garmin GT30 transducer, which comes with the GCV10
sonar module, infringes claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 57 of the '550 patent;
and (v) the accused Garmin GT30 transducer, in conjunction with the
GCV10 sonar module, infringes claims 32 and 44 of the '550 patent. The
Commission has determined Garmin has not proven that the asserted
claims of the '840 patent are invalid. The Commission has determined
that Garmin has proven that claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 57 of the '550
patent are invalid as obvious, but that Garmin has not proven that
claims 32 and 44 of the '550 patent are invalid. The Commission has
also determined that Navico has proven that a domestic industry exists
in the United States for the '550 patent.
[[Page 76042]]
The Commission has determined that Navico has not proven a
violation with respect to the '499 patent. The Commission has
determined to adopt, on modified grounds, the ALJ's construction of the
term ``combining'' (and its variants) recited in the asserted claims of
the '499 patent. Under that construction, the Commission has determined
that the asserted claims are not invalid and not infringed.
The Commission has determined the appropriate remedy is a limited
exclusion order and a cease and desist order prohibiting Garmin from
importing into the United States or selling or distributing within the
United States certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan
and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components
thereof that infringe the asserted claims of the '840 and '550 patents.
The Commission has determined the public interest factors enumerated in
section 337(d)(1) and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the limited
exclusion order or cease and desist order.
Finally, the Commission has determined to apply a bond in the
amount of 100 percent of the entered value of excluded products
imported during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
The Commission's order and opinion were delivered to the President and
to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 1, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-30733 Filed 12-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
