[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26987-26988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09636]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1119]


Certain Infotainment Systems, Components Thereof, and Automobiles 
Containing the Same; Notice of a Commission 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 determined to affirm, with modified reasoning, the final 
initial determination's (``FID'') finding that no violation of section 
337 has occurred. The investigation is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC. 20436, telephone (202) 205-3228. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may 
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email 
[email protected]. General information concerning the Commission may 
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on 
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD 
terminal, telephone 202-205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 12, 2018, the Commission instituted 
this investigation based on a complaint filed by Broadcom Corporation 
(``Broadcom'') of San Jose, California. 83 FR 27349 (June 12, 2018). 
The complaint alleged a violation 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, sale for importation, or sale in the United 
States after importation of certain infotainment systems, components 
thereof, and automobiles containing same that allegedly infringe one or 
more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,937,187 (``the '187 patent''); 
8,902,104 (``the '104 patent''); 7,512,752 (``the '752 patent''); 
7,530,027 (``the '027 patent''); 8,284,844 (``the '844 patent''); and 
7,437,583 (``the '583 patent'') (collectively, ``the Asserted 
Patents''). The notice of investigation named 15 respondents, including 
Toyota Motor Corporation of Aichi, Japan; Toyota Motor North America, 
Inc. of Plano, TX; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. of Plano, TX; 
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. of Plano, 
TX; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. of Princeton, IN; Toyota 
Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. of Erlanger, KY; Toyota Motor 
Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc. of Tupelo, MS; and Toyota Motor 
Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. of San Antonio, TX (collectively, 
``Toyota''); Panasonic Corporation of Osaka, Japan and Panasonic 
Corporation of North America of Newark, NJ (collectively, 
``Panasonic''); DENSO TEN Limited of Kobe City, Japan and DENSO TEN 
AMERICA Limited of Torrance, CA (collectively, ``DENSO TEN''); Renesas 
Electronics Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and Renesas Electronics 
America, Inc. of Milpitas, CA (collectively, ``Renesas''); and Japan 
Radio Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan. Id. at 27349-50. The Office of Unfair 
Import Investigations was not named as a party. Id. at 27351.
    The complaint and notice of investigation were later amended to add 
ten more respondents, including Pioneer Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and 
Pioneer Automotive Technologies, Inc. of Farmington Hills, MI 
(collectively, ``Pioneer''); DENSO Corporation of Aichi, Japan; DENSO 
International America, Inc. of Southfield, MI; DENSO Manufacturing 
Tennessee, Inc. of Maryville, TN; and DENSO Wireless Systems America, 
Inc. of Vista, CA (collectively, ``DENSO Corp.''); u-blox AG of 
Thalwil, Switzerland; u-blox America, Inc. of Reston, VA; u-blox San 
Diego, Inc. of San Diego, CA; and Socionext Inc. of Kanagawa, Japan. 
Order No. 14 (Oct. 3,

[[Page 26988]]

2018), not rev'd in relevant part, Comm'n Notice (Nov. 1, 2018).
    Certain patent claims were subsequently withdrawn and terminated 
from the investigation. See Order No. 20 (Jan. 31, 2019), not rev'd, 
Comm'n Notice (Feb. 19, 2019); Order No. 48 (June 5, 2019), not rev'd, 
Comm'n Notice (June 18, 2019); Order No. 49 (June 13, 2019), not rev'd, 
Comm'n Notice (June 28, 2019). At the time of the FID, the claims at 
issue were claims 1-3, 5, and 9 of the '187 patent; claim 12 of the 
'104 patent; claims 1-2 and 4-8 of the '752 patent; claims 11 and 20 of 
the '027 patent; claims 11 and 13 of the '844 patent; and claims 17-18 
and 25-26 of the '583 patent. See Comm'n Notice (June 28, 2019).
    On November 13, 2019, the ALJ issued an FID finding no violation of 
section 337. See FID. On November 15, 2019, the ALJ issued a Notice of 
Correction to Conclusions of Law in Initial Determination on Violation 
of Section 337 and a corrected FID issued on November 18, 2019. The 
corrected FID fixes a typographical error in the conclusions of law and 
correctly identifies Respondents found to infringe the '583 patent. See 
FID at p. 272.
    The FID also contains the ALJ's recommended determination 
recommending, if a violation is found, that the Commission issue a 
limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of infringing 
infotainment systems, components thereof, and automobiles containing 
same that infringe. as well as cease and desist orders directed to 
certain domestic respondents.
    On November 26, 2019, Broadcom filed a petition for review of the 
FID and the respondents filed a contingent petition for review. On 
December 4, 2019, Broadcom and the respondents filed responses to each 
other's petitions.
    On December 16, 2019, Broadcom filed a submission on the public 
interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 
210.50(a)(4)). That same day, Toyota, Renesas, and Tier 1 Suppliers 
(DENSO Corp., DENSO TEN, Panasonic, and Pioneer) filed their 
submissions on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 
210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). On December 18, 2019, two non-
parties, Peter Morici and the Reshoring Initiative, filed submissions 
on the public interest in response to the Commission's notice 
requesting such responses. 84 FR 64104 (Nov. 20, 2019).
    On March 3, 2020, the Commission determined to review the FID in 
part and requested briefing on certain issues. 85 FR 12576-78 (March 3, 
2020). Specifically, the Commission determined to review the FID's 
findings on: (1) The claim construction of the limitation ``at least 
one processor'' recited in claims 25 and 26 of the '583 patent; (2) 
infringement of the asserted claims of the '583 patent; (3) technical 
prong of the domestic industry requirement as to the '583 patent; (4) 
invalidity of the asserted claims of the '752 patent; and (5) whether 
the accused Pioneer head units meet the limitations of claims 2 and 5 
of the '752 patent. Id. The Commission requested briefing on some of 
the issues under review, and remedy, bonding, and the public interest. 
Id. On March 11, 2020, the parties filed their written responses to the 
Commission's request for briefing. On March 18, 2020, the parties filed 
their reply submissions.
    On March 11, 2020, additional submissions on remedy, bonding, and 
the public interest were received from the following non-parties: 
Representatives and Senators from Kentucky; Representatives and 
Senators from Texas; Harman International Industries, Incorporated; and 
the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
FID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, and filings 
in response to the Commission's request for briefing, the Commission 
has determined to affirm, with modified reasoning, the FID's finding of 
no violation of section 337. Specifically, the Commission affirms, with 
modified reasoning as explained in the Commission opinion, that: (1) 
Claims 25 and 26 of the '583 patent are not infringed by any 
Respondent; (2) the technical prong of the domestic industry 
requirement is not met for the '583 patent; (3) the Pioneer head units 
do not meet the limitations of claims 2 and 5 of the '752 patent; and 
(4) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the '752 patent are invalid as 
anticipated and obvious. The Commission affirms the FID's infringement 
finding as to claims 17 and 18 of the '583 patent.
    The investigation is terminated.
    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: April 30, 2020.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020-09636 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P