80 FR 73211 - Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Systems, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 226 (November 24, 2015)

Page Range		73211-73212
FR Document		2015-29857

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation of section 337 in this investigation and has (1) issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting importation of infringing marine sonar imaging systems, products containing the same, and components thereof and (2) issued cease and desist orders directed to the domestic respondents. The investigation is terminated.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73211-73212]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29857]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-926]

Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Systems, Products Containing the
Same, and Components Thereof; Commission's Final Determination Finding
a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and
Cease and Desist Orders; 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 in this investigation
and has (1) issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting importation of
infringing marine sonar imaging systems, products containing the same,
and components thereof and (2) issued cease and desist orders directed
to the domestic respondents. The investigation is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3042. 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
(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 this investigation
on August 21, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Johnson Outdoors lnc.
of Racine, Wisconsin and Johnson Outdoors Marine Electronics, Inc. of
Eufaula, Alabama (collectively, ``Johnson Outdoors''). 79 FR 49536
(Aug. 21, 2014). The complaint alleges 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 marine sonar imaging
systems, products containing the same, and components thereof by reason
of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 17, 25, 26, 31, 32, 35,
36, 41-43, 53, and 56 of U.S. Patent No. 7,652,952 (``the '952
patent''); claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent
No. 7,710,825 (``the '825 patent''); and claims 14, 18, 21-23, 25, and
33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,755,974 (``the '974 patent''). Id. The notice
of investigation named the following respondents: Garmin International,
Inc.; Garmin North America, Inc.; Garmin USA, Inc. all of Olathe,
Kansas; and Garmin Corporation of New Taipei City, Taiwan
(collectively, ``Garmin''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations is not a party to the investigation.
On January 30, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation that
the domestic industry requirement was met. The parties also agreed to a
stipulation regarding importation of Garmin accused products. That same
day, Johnson Outdoors filed two unopposed motions for summary
determination: (1) That Garmin's importation and sales satisfy the
importation requirement and (2) that Johnson Outdoors satisfies the

[[Page 73212]]

domestic industry requirement. On March 24, 2015, the ALJ granted
Johnson Outdoors' summary determination motions in Order Nos. 14 and
15, respectively. The Commission determined not to review these orders.
See Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review Two Initial
Determinations Granting Unopposed Motions for Summary Determinations of
Importation and the Existence of a Domestic Industry That Practices the
Asserted Patents (April 22, 2015).
On July 13, 2015, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation
of section 337 by Garmin in connection with claims 14, 18, 21, 22, 23,
and 33 of the '974 patent. The ID found no violation of section 337 in
connection with the asserted claims of the '952 and '825 patents; and
claim 25 of the '974 patent. Specifically, the ID found that the
Commission has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over
the accused products, and in personam jurisdiction over Garmin. ID at
21. The ID further found that the accused products infringe asserted
claims 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 33 of the '974 patent but do not
infringe the asserted claims of the '952 and '825 patents or claim 25
of the '974 patent. See ID at 55-57, 58-59, and 60-62. The ID also
found that Garmin failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that the asserted claims of the '952, '825, or '974 patents were
anticipated or rendered obvious by the cited prior art references. See
id. at 68-80, 89-100. Finally, the ID found that the '952, '825, and
'974 patents are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and that
the '952 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) for derivation.
ID at 80-83, 100-109.
On July 27, 2015, Garmin filed a petition for review of the ID.
That same day, Johnson Outdoors filed a contingent petition for review
of the ID. On August 4, 2015, the parties filed responses to the
petitions.
On August 25, 2015, the Commission determined to review the final
ID on all issues petitioned. 80 FR 55872-74 (Sept. 17, 2015).
Specifically, the Commission asked the parties to discuss any impact on
the ID's findings if it were to construe the claim term ``mounted to a
boat'' to mean ``proximately secured to the boat in a fixed manner.''
On September 21, 2015, the parties filed written submissions on the
issues under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On
September 28, 2015, the parties filed reply submissions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
final ID, and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined
to modify the ID's construction of the claim term ``mounted to a
boat,'' a claim term recited in each of the asserted claims of the
'952, '974, and '825 patents (save for asserted claim 29 of the '825
patent), which the ID construed as ``attached to a bottom surface of
the boat.'' Instead, the Commission adopts the construction proposed by
complainants before the ALJ and construes the limitation to mean
``proximately secured to the boat in a fixed manner.'' The Commission
finds that the record evidence supports the ID's findings on
infringement and invalidity based on this construction. The Commission
has determined to affirm the ID's finding of no violation of section
337 in connection with the asserted claims of the'952 patent, '825
patent, and claim 25 of the '974 patent. The Commission further finds a
violation of Section 337 with respect to claims 14, 18, 21-23, and 33
of the '974 patent. The Commission adopts the ID's findings to the
extent they are not inconsistent with the Commission opinion issued
herewith.
Having found a violation of section 337 in this investigation, the
Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is: (1) A
limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of marine
sonar imaging systems, products containing the same, and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 33
of the '974 patent that are manufactured by, or on behalf of, or are
imported by or on behalf of Garmin or any of its affiliated companies,
parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or
their successors or assigns; and (2) cease and desist orders
prohibiting domestic respondents Garmin International, Inc.; Garmin
North America, Inc.; and Garmin USA, Inc. from conducting any of the
following activities in the United States: Importing, selling,
marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, marine
sonar imaging systems, products containing the same, and components
thereof covered by claims 14, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 33 of the '974 patent.
The proposed cease and desist orders include the following exemptions:
(1) If in a written instrument, the owner of the patents authorizes or
licenses such specific conduct, or such specific conduct is related to
the importation or sale of covered products by or for the United
States.
The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors
enumerated in section 337(d) and (f) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d) and (f)) do not
preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or cease and desist
orders. Finally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the
amount of zero is required to permit temporary importation during the
period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) of marine sonar
imaging systems, products containing the same, and components thereof
that are subject to the remedial orders. The Commission's orders 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).

Issued: November 18, 2015.

By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-29857 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

73212 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 2015 / Notices

domestic industry requirement. On Commission has determined to modify issuance of the limited exclusion order
March 24, 2015, the ALJ granted the ID’s construction of the claim term or cease and desist orders. Finally, the
Johnson Outdoors’ summary ‘‘mounted to a boat,’’ a claim term Commission has determined that a bond
determination motions in Order Nos. 14 recited in each of the asserted claims of in the amount of zero is required to
and 15, respectively. The Commission the ’952, ’974, and ’825 patents (save for permit temporary importation during
determined not to review these orders. asserted claim 29 of the ’825 patent), the period of Presidential review (19
See Notice of Commission which the ID construed as ‘‘attached to U.S.C. 1337(j)) of marine sonar imaging
Determination Not to Review Two a bottom surface of the boat.’’ Instead, systems, products containing the same,
Initial Determinations Granting the Commission adopts the construction and components thereof that are subject
Unopposed Motions for Summary proposed by complainants before the to the remedial orders. The
Determinations of Importation and the ALJ and construes the limitation to Commission’s orders and opinion were
Existence of a Domestic Industry That mean ‘‘proximately secured to the boat delivered to the President and to the
Practices the Asserted Patents (April 22, in a fixed manner.’’ The Commission United States Trade Representative on
2015). finds that the record evidence supports the day of their issuance.
On July 13, 2015, the ALJ issued his the ID’s findings on infringement and The authority for the Commission’s
final ID, finding a violation of section invalidity based on this construction. determination is contained in section
337 by Garmin in connection with The Commission has determined to 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
claims 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 33 of the affirm the ID’s finding of no violation of amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part
’974 patent. The ID found no violation section 337 in connection with the 210 of the Commission’s Rules of
of section 337 in connection with the asserted claims of the’952 patent, ’825 Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
asserted claims of the ’952 and ’825 patent, and claim 25 of the ’974 patent. 210).
patents; and claim 25 of the ’974 patent. The Commission further finds a
Issued: November 18, 2015.
Specifically, the ID found that the violation of Section 337 with respect to
Commission has subject matter claims 14, 18, 21–23, and 33 of the ’974 By order of the Commission.
jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the patent. The Commission adopts the ID’s Lisa R. Barton,
accused products, and in personam findings to the extent they are not Secretary to the Commission.
jurisdiction over Garmin. ID at 21. The inconsistent with the Commission [FR Doc. 2015–29857 Filed 11–23–15; 8:45 am]
ID further found that the accused opinion issued herewith. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
products infringe asserted claims 14, 18, Having found a violation of section
21, 22, 23, and 33 of the ’974 patent but 337 in this investigation, the
do not infringe the asserted claims of Commission has determined that the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
the ’952 and ’825 patents or claim 25 of appropriate form of relief is: (1) A
the ’974 patent. See ID at 55–57, 58–59, limited exclusion order prohibiting the Antitrust Division
and 60–62. The ID also found that unlicensed entry of marine sonar
Garmin failed to establish by clear and imaging systems, products containing United States et al. v. Springleaf
convincing evidence that the asserted the same, and components thereof that Holdings, Inc., et al.; Proposed Final
claims of the ’952, ’825, or ’974 patents infringe one or more of claims 14, 18, Judgment and Competitive Impact
were anticipated or rendered obvious by 21, 22, 23, and 33 of the ’974 patent that Statement
the cited prior art references. See id. at are manufactured by, or on behalf of, or
68–80, 89–100. Finally, the ID found are imported by or on behalf of Garmin Notice is hereby given pursuant to the
that the ’952, ’825, and ’974 patents are or any of its affiliated companies, Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
not unenforceable due to inequitable parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed
conduct and that the ’952 patent is not related business entities, or their Final Judgment, Asset Preservation
invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) for successors or assigns; and (2) cease and Stipulation and Order, and Competitive
derivation. ID at 80–83, 100–109. desist orders prohibiting domestic Impact Statement have been filed with
On July 27, 2015, Garmin filed a respondents Garmin International, Inc.; the United States District Court for the
petition for review of the ID. That same Garmin North America, Inc.; and District of Columbia in United States et.
day, Johnson Outdoors filed a Garmin USA, Inc. from conducting any al. v. Springleaf Holdings, Inc., et. al.,
contingent petition for review of the ID. of the following activities in the United Civil Action No. 15–1992 (RMC). On
On August 4, 2015, the parties filed States: Importing, selling, marketing, November 13, 2015, the United States
responses to the petitions. advertising, distributing, transferring filed a Complaint alleging that the
On August 25, 2015, the Commission (except for exportation), and soliciting proposed acquisition by Springleaf
determined to review the final ID on all U.S. agents or distributors for, marine Holdings, Inc. of OneMain Financial
issues petitioned. 80 FR 55872–74 (Sept. sonar imaging systems, products Holdings, LLC would violate Section 7
17, 2015). Specifically, the Commission containing the same, and components of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The
asked the parties to discuss any impact thereof covered by claims 14, 18, 21, 22, proposed Final Judgment, filed at the
on the ID’s findings if it were to 23 and 33 of the ’974 patent. The same time as the Complaint, requires
construe the claim term ‘‘mounted to a proposed cease and desist orders Springleaf Holdings to divest 127
boat’’ to mean ‘‘proximately secured to include the following exemptions: (1) If branches in Arizona, California,
the boat in a fixed manner.’’ in a written instrument, the owner of Colorado, Idaho, North Carolina, Ohio,
On September 21, 2015, the parties the patents authorizes or licenses such Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

filed written submissions on the issues specific conduct, or such specific Washington and West Virginia.
under review, remedy, the public conduct is related to the importation or Copies of the Complaint, proposed
interest, and bonding. On September 28, sale of covered products by or for the Final Judgment and Competitive Impact
2015, the parties filed reply United States. Statement are available for inspection
submissions. The Commission has also determined on the Antitrust Division’s Web site at
Having examined the record of this that the public interest factors http://www.justice.gov/atr, and at the
investigation, including the final ID, and enumerated in section 337(d) and (f) (19 Office of the Clerk of the United States
the parties’ submissions, the U.S.C. 1337(d) and (f)) do not preclude District Court for the District of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:20 Nov 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1

Document Created: 2015-12-14 14:09:15
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 14:09:15

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice.
Contact		Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3042. 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 (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.
FR Citation		80 FR 73211