[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67416-67417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27811]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-907]


Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras, Components 
Thereof, and Products Containing the Same: Notice of the Commission's 
Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; 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 no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned investigation, and has 
terminated the investigation.

[[Page 67417]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda P. Fisherow, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. The public version of 
the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and 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 January 28, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Magna Electronics 
Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. See 79 FR 4490-91 (Jan. 28, 2014). The 
complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), in the importation into 
the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the 
United States after importation of certain vision-based driver 
assistance system cameras and components thereof by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,116,929 (``the 
'929 patent'') and 8,593,521 (``the '521 patent''). The complaint 
further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. Subsequently, the 
complaint and notice of investigation were amended by adding U.S. 
Patent Nos. 8,686,840 (``the '840 patent'') and 8,692,659 (``the '659 
patent''), and by terminating the investigation in-part as to all 
claims of the '521 patent. The '929 patent was later terminated from 
the investigation. The respondent named in the Commission's notice of 
investigation is TRW Automotive U.S., LLC of Livonia, Michigan 
(``TRW''). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was 
also named a party in the investigation.
    On April 27, 2015, the ALJ issued his final ID. The ID found that 
no violation of section 337 has occurred. Specifically, the ID found 
that the '659 and '840 patents were not indirectly infringed, that the 
'840 patent is invalid, and that the domestic industry requirement for 
the '840 patent has not been met. The ALJ also issued his 
recommendation on remedy and bonding.
    On May 11, 2015, Magna and TRW each filed petitions for review. On 
May 19, 2015, the parties, including OUII, filed responses to the 
respective petitions for review. On May 28, 2015, Magna filed a 
corrected response. The Commission determined to review the ID's 
findings with respect to: (1) Importation; (2) whether the asserted 
claims of the '659 patent require a camera; (3) direct infringement of 
the '659 patent; (4) induced infringement of the '659 and '840 patents; 
(5) contributory infringement of the '659 and '840 patents; (6) whether 
the '659 patent satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112; (7) 
anticipation of the '659 patent claims based on Rayner; (8) 
anticipation of the '659 patent claims based on Batavia; (9) 
anticipation of the '659 patent claims based on the SafeTrac Prototype; 
(10) obviousness of the '659 patent based on Rayner in combination with 
Blank; (11) obviousness of the '659 patent based on Batavia, the 
SafeTrac Prototype, and the Navlab 1997 Demo; (12) whether the claims 
are invalid under the America Invents Act Sec.  33(a); and (13) the 
technical prong of domestic industry for the '659 and '840 patents.
    On August 17, 2015, the parties briefed the issues on review, 
remedy, bonding, and the public interest. On August 27, 2015, the 
parties filed their reply submissions. After the conclusion of this 
briefing, TRW filed ``Respondent's Short Submission Out Of Time 
Regarding Complainant Admission on Commission Topic 2'' and Magna filed 
a response thereto.
    After considering the final ID, written submissions, and the record 
in this investigation, the Commission has determined to affirm-in-part 
and reverse-in-part the final ID and to terminate the investigation 
with a finding of no violation of section 337. Specifically, the 
Commission finds that (1) the importation requirement has not been 
satisfied for the '659 patent; (2) the asserted claims of the '659 
patent do not require a camera; (3) certain automobiles equipped with a 
mounting system configured to receive certain accused products directly 
infringe the '659 patent; (4) the accused products do not 
contributorily infringe the '659 patent; (5) the accused products do 
not induce infringement of the '659 patent; (6) claims 1 and 3 of the 
'659 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Rayner in view of 
Blank; (7) claims 1 and 3 of the '659 patent are not anticipated by 
Rayner; (8) the asserted claims are not invalid under the America 
Invents Act Sec.  33(a); (9) the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement for the '840 patent has not been met; and (10) the 
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '659 
patent has not been met. The Commission also (11) takes no position on 
indirect infringement of the '840 patent; (12) takes no position on 
importation with respect to the '840 patent; (13) takes no position on 
whether claim 1 of the '659 patent is invalid based on Batavia, the 
SafeTrac Prototype, and the Navlab 1997 Demo, either alone or in 
combination; (14) takes no position on whether the asserted claims of 
the '659 patent satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112; and (15) 
rejects TRW's filing titled ``Respondent's Short Submission Out Of Time 
Regarding Complainant Admission on Commission Topic 2.''
    A Commission Opinion will issue shortly.
    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: October 27, 2015.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-27811 Filed 10-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P