[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44710-44712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-17827]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1400]
Certain Cameras, Camera Systems, and Accessories Used Therewith;
Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial
Determination of Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on Certain Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public
Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part a final initial
determination (``Final ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930. The Commission requests briefing from the parties on certain
issues under review and from the parties, interested government
agencies, and interested persons on remedy, the public interest, and
bonding based on the schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted the above-
captioned investigation on May 6, 2024, based on a complaint filed by
GoPro, Inc. of San Mateo, California (``GoPro''). 89 FR 37242-43 (May
6, 2024). The complaint alleged a violation 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 cameras,
camera systems, and accessories used therewith by reason of the
infringement of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,015,413 (``the '413
patent''); claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,529,052 (``the '052
patent''); claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,574,894 (``the '894
patent''); claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,840 (``the '840
patent''); claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,336,832 (``the '832
patent''); and the claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D789,435 (``the
D'435 patent''). Id. at 37243. The complaint further alleged that an
industry in the United States exists. Id. The notice of investigation
named as respondents Arashi Vision Inc. d/b/a Insta360 of Shenzhen,
China, and Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360 of Irvine,
California (collectively, ``Insta360''). Id. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations is not a party to the investigation. Id.
GoPro terminated the investigation based on partial withdrawals of
the complaint with respect to claims 2-12 of the '413 patent; claims 3,
4, and 7-10 of the '052 patent; claims 2-4 and 6-20 of the '894 patent;
claims 1-12 and 15-21 of the '840 patent; and claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and
10 of the '832 patent. Order No. 9 (Sept. 30, 2024), unreviewed by
Comm'n Notice (Oct. 25, 2024); Order No. 24 (Jan. 13, 2025), unreviewed
by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 31, 2025). Accordingly, at the time of the Final
ID, GoPro asserted infringement of the following claims: claim 1 of the
'413 patent; claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the '052 patent; claims 1 and 5
of the '894 patent; claims 13 and 14 of the '840 patent; claims 4 and 8
of the '832 patent; and the single claim of the D'435 patent.
On December 13, 2024, the parties stipulated that the importation
requirement was satisfied for all accused products. Importation
Stipulation Between Complainant and Respondents (Dec. 13, 2024). On
January 21, 2025, the Commission found that GoPro satisfied the
economic prong
[[Page 44711]]
of the domestic industry requirement for all six asserted patents.
Order No. 18 (Dec. 19, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 21,
2025). The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from January 13 to 17, 2025.
On July 11, 2025, the ALJ issued the Final ID finding a violation
of section 337 by Insta360 with respect to D'435 and no violation with
respect to the five utility patents. Final ID at 274-75. Specifically,
the Final ID found: (1) claims 1 and 5 of the '894 patent were not
infringed, were not invalid, and were satisfied for the technical prong
of the domestic industry requirement; (2) claims 13 and 14 of the '840
patent were not infringed, claim 13 was not invalid but claim 14 was
invalid, and claims 13 and 14 were satisfied for the technical prong;
(3) claims 4 and 8 of the '832 patent were infringed, were invalid, and
were satisfied for the technical prong; (4) claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of
the '052 patent were infringed (for the wide-angle lens products only),
were invalid, and were satisfied for the technical prong; (5) claim 1
of the '413 was not infringed, was invalid, and was satisfied for the
technical prong; and (6) the claim of D'413 was infringed, was not
invalid, and was satisfied for the technical prong. Id.
The ALJ also issued a recommended determination (``RD'') on remedy
and bond. If the Commission were to find a violation, the ALJ
recommends that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order against
covered articles imported by or on behalf of the Insta360 respondents
and a cease and desist order against the domestic respondent--Arashi
Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360--based on an undisputed commercially
significant inventory of accused products. RD at 275-77. The ALJ also
recommends setting the bond at zero percent of the entered value of the
covered articles because the price differential analysis shows that the
domestic industry GoPro products cost less than the accused Insta360
products. Id. at 277-82.
On July 25, 2025, GoPro filed a petition for review of the Final
ID's findings of no violation for all five utility patents, and a
contingent petition for review on certain issues regarding the design
patent. Also on July 25, 2025, Insta360 filed a petition for review of
the Final ID's finding of violation of the design patent, and a
contingent petition for review on certain issues regarding four of the
utility patents. On August 4, 2025, GoPro and Insta360 opposed each
other's petitions.
On July 15, 2025, the Commission requested comments from the public
and interested government agencies regarding any public interest issues
raised by the ALJ's RD. See 90 FR 31679 (Jul. 15, 2025). The Commission
received comments from U.S. Representatives Kevin Mullin, John
Moolenaar, and Raja Krishnamoorthi. The Commission also received
comments from GoPro and Insta360 pursuant to Commission Rule
210.50(a)(4). 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
Final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review the Final ID in part as to the '840
patent, '052 patent, and D'435 patent. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review the following issues: (1) the Final ID's findings
relating to the limitation ``determine a smoothed trajectory of the
housing based on a look-ahead of the trajectory and one or more of a
weight-balance parameter, a low-light high-pass parameter, and/or a
stickiness parameter'' (Element 1[g(i)]) of claim 1 and the additional
limitations of claim 14 for the '840 patent; (2) the Final ID's
findings relating to the limitation ``wherein the output images include
the sub-frames remapped from the input lens distortion centered in the
fields of view of the input images to the desired lens distortion
centered in the reduced fields of view to transform the different lens
distortion effects present in the sub-frames to the desired lens
distortion such that portions of the scene depicted in the sub-frames
appear to have been captured using the reduced fields of view''
(Element 1[g]) of the '052 patent; (3) the Final ID's findings
regarding invalidity of the asserted claims of the '052 patent in view
of Okubo U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0017817; and (4) the Final ID's
infringement findings for the D'435 patent. The Commission declines to
review the remainder of the issues in the Final ID, including the
findings of no violation for the '894, '832, and '413 patents. The
Commission also notes that it will reconsider the domestic industry
findings discussed in Order No. 18 (Dec. 19, 2024), unreviewed by
Comm'n Notice (Jan. 21, 2025).
In connection with its review, the Commission is interested in
responses to the following question. The parties are requested to brief
their positions with reference to the applicable law, the existing
evidentiary record, and the parties' submissions during the
investigation.
1. Relying on the existing evidentiary record and the applicable
law, please explain in detail whether the accused products infringe the
D'435 patent. As a part of that explanation, please explain the legal
significance of the accused products' pivoting rear screen and its
ability to be in multiple positions. Please explain how your reply to
this question relates to the arguments made before the ALJ.
In answering the above briefing question, the parties should
specifically point to where in their arguments before the ALJ and in
their petitions for review these issues were addressed and the
corresponding record evidence discussed. In seeking briefing on these
issues, the Commission will not excuse any party's noncompliance with
Commission rules and the ALJ's procedural requirements, including
requirements to present issues and arguments in submissions to the ALJ
and/or in petitions for Commission review. Any such attempts will be
regarded as waived. The parties are invited to brief only the discrete
issues requested above. The parties are not to brief other issues on
review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing
filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that
could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into
the United States; and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result
in the respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly,
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party
seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate
and provide information establishing that activities involving other
types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so.
For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op.
at 7-10 (Dec. 1994).
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and
cease and desist orders would have on: (1) the public health and
welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those
that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The
Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions
that address the
[[Page 44712]]
aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this
investigation.
Parties are also invited to address the following issues regarding
Insta360's request for warranty and repair exemption, as appropriate:
(a) What is the rationale for providing an exemption, either under
the Commission's broad remedial discretion or under the public interest
factors? Please provide available factual evidence in support,
including any not currently on the record.
(b) What are the warranty terms, if any, for the merchandise in
question?
(c) Should the exemption apply only to merchandise under warranty,
or to all needed service and repair?
(d) Should the exemption cover only parts for service/repair, or
should it also allow complete replacement of merchandise?
(e) What should the temporal cutoff be for the exemption, e.g.,
should the operative date be the issuance of the Commission's final
determination or the end of the Presidential review period, and should
it apply to merchandise sold prior to such date or imported prior to
such date?
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve,
disapprove, or take no position on the Commission's action. See
Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the
United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The Commission requests that the parties to
the investigation file written submissions on the issues identified in
this notice. Parties to the investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file
written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination
by the ALJ on remedy and bonding, which issued on July 10, 2025.
In its initial submission, Complainant is also requested to
identify the remedy sought and to submit proposed remedial orders for
the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to
provide the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused products are
imported and to supply the identification information for all known
importers of the products at issue in this investigation. All initial
written submissions, from the parties and/or third parties/interested
government agencies, and proposed remedial orders from the parties must
be filed no later than close of business on September 25, 2025. All
reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
October 2, 2025. Opening submissions from the parties are limited to 50
pages. Reply submissions from the parties are limited to 30 pages. All
submission from third parties and/or interested government agencies are
limited to 10 pages. No further submissions on any of these issues will
be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19
CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number
(Inv. No. 337-TA-1400) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or
the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons
with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary, (202)
205-2000.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document
with a header indicating that the document contains confidential
information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request
procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b)
& 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted
non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including
confidential business information and documents for which confidential
treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes
of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding,
or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations
relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government
employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on September
11, 2025.
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: September 11, 2025.
Susan Orndoff,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2025-17827 Filed 9-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P