UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`____________________________________
`
`In the Matter of:
`CERTAIN LOCATION-SHARING
`SYSTEMS, RELATED SOFTWARE,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`Docket No. 3655
`
`PROPOSED RESPONDENTS PANASONIC CORPORATION AND PANASONIC
`CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA’S PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
`
`

`

`Proposed Respondents Panasonic Corporation1 (“Panasonic”) and Panasonic Corporation
`
`of North America (“PNA”) (collectively, the “Panasonic Respondents”) respectfully offer this
`
`submission in response to the Commission’s request for comments on the public interest issues
`
`raised by the Complaint filed by Complainants AGIS Software Development LLC and Advanced
`
`Ground Information Systems, Inc. (collectively “Complainants”) on November 16, 2022.
`
`The exclusion of the accused Panasonic Toughbooks would have serious and detrimental
`
`consequences to public health, safety, and welfare in the United States. The majority of the
`
`Panasonic Respondents’ Accused Products at issue are sold and used by state and local police
`
`departments, fire departments, and other emergency service providers. These first responders
`
`specifically depend on the ruggedness and reliability of the Panasonic Toughbook line of laptop
`
`computers and tablets to more effectively protect the public from harm. If these Panasonic
`
`Toughbooks were to be excluded, these emergency service providers would be less effective at
`
`performing their duties serving and protecting the public and would be forced to use less rugged
`
`devices that would break down more often, thus endangering the public safety and welfare.
`
`Complainants have made no showing that they or their licensees make like or competitive
`
`articles in the United States, nor have Complainants made any showing that they or their licensees
`
`have the capacity that could replace the volume of the Panasonic Toughbooks that they seek to
`
`exclude within a commercially reasonable time. Complainants cite no evidence whatsoever for
`
`their bald allegation that Apple smartphones could supplant and replace the Panasonic Toughbooks
`
`(Complainants’ Statement Regarding the Public Interest at 4). Unlike Toughbooks, third-party
`
`
`1 On April 1, 2022, Panasonic Corporation had a corporate restructuring, in which it changed its name to
`Panasonic Holdings Corporation and created a new entity called Panasonic Corporation. The lines of
`business of the current Panasonic Corporation business entity is unrelated to the Panasonic Toughbook
`products accused of infringement in this case. Therefore, the statements made in this Public Interest
`Statement about the Panasonic Toughbook products are not made on behalf of Panasonic Corporation.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`laptops, tablets, and smartphones, including Apple’s smartphones, are not ruggedized and cannot
`
`withstand the physical rigors of daily use by police, firefighters, and other emergency responders.
`
`The requested remedial orders would adversely impact United States consumers by rendering the
`
`emergency services providers that rely on Toughbooks less efficient and less effective at protecting
`
`the public.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the Panasonic Respondents submit that
`
`delegation of the public interest to the ALJ is necessary to provide the Commission with the benefit
`
`of a complete record regarding how the relief requested by Complainants against the Panasonic
`
`Respondents will adversely impact the public interest.
`
`I.
`
`The Articles Potentially Subject to Remedial Orders in the United States Are
`Specifically Used to Serve the Public Welfare
`
`The accused Panasonic products are its Toughbook line of laptop computers and tablets,
`
`including Toughbook G2, Toughbook 33, Toughbook CF-33LE, Toughbook G1, Toughbook FZ-
`
`Q1, Toughbook S1, Toughbook A3, Toughbook N1, and Toughbook FZ-N1. The Panasonic
`
`Toughbook line is “a fully rugged” or “semi-rugged” line of devices “that are trusted and used by
`
`hardworking people in the toughest environments anywhere.”2 The unique “ruggedized” features
`
`of the Toughbook make it a particularly well-suited mobile device for use by emergency service
`
`providers.3
`
`Complainants sweepingly, and without support, state that the Panasonic Respondents’
`
`products at issue in this Investigation, are “generally used by the end consumers for personal,
`
`business, and communication purposes” and that “[i]ssuance of the requested remedial orders
`
`
`2 See https://na.panasonic.com/us/computers-tablets-handhelds/computers/laptops;
`https://na.panasonic.com/us/computers-tablets-handhelds/computers/2-1s
`3 See, e.g., https://na.panasonic.com/us/case-study/st-louis-county-police-department &
`https://na.panasonic.com/us/case-study/metropolitan-police-department
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`would have no adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare in the United States.
`
`(Complainants’ Statement, 3). This statement is not accurate – and is in fact flatly untrue - in the
`
`case of the Panasonic Respondents.
`
`Indeed, the majority of the Panasonic Toughbook products at issue in this Investigation
`
`and potentially subject to exclusion are sold and used by state and local government emergency
`
`departments,
`
`including
`
`police
`
`departments
`
`and
`
`fire
`
`departments.
`
`(See
`
`https://na.panasonic.com/us/case-studies, filtered by “Government and Public Safety”). Among
`
`the case studies for the Toughbook that are highlighted on Panasonic’s website are numerous
`
`police departments,4 sheriff’s departments,5 and fire departments.6 These emergency departments
`
`require rugged laptops and/or tablets and they need to be “certain that the devices they invested in
`
`would stand up to the conditions their officers face in the field.”7
`
`These accused Toughbook products are ruggedized and have long been specifically
`
`marketed to and sold and used by emergency service providers in particular. Indeed, this is why
`
`the Toughbook is such a critically important product for this sector, which daily serves the safety
`
`and health needs of the American public: “[T]hey needed mobile technology that was not only
`
`powerful and capable, but highly dependable on an island where heavy rains, saltwater spray, sand
`
`and extreme heat are a constant threat, and typhoons and earthquakes are not uncommon. The
`
`answer? Panasonic TOUGHBOOK® laptops.”8 The Panasonic Toughbook differentiates from
`
`other mobile devices by famously being capable of “taking a bullet” and continuing to operate.9
`
`
`4 See, e.g., https://na.panasonic.com/us/case-study/roswell-police-department
`5 See, e.g., https://na.panasonic.com/us/case-study/alameda-county-sheriff
`6 See, e.g., https://na.panasonic.com/us/case-study/guam-fire-department
`7 See https://na.panasonic.com/us/case-study/roswell-police-department
`8 See https://na.panasonic.com/us/case-study/guam-fire-department
`9 See https://www.tweaktown.com/news/12620/panasonic_toughbook_cf_30_takes_a_bullet/index.html
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`II.
`
`The Requested Remedial Orders Raise Public Health, Safety, and Welfare Concerns
`in the United States
`
`As noted above, the majority of the Panasonic Toughbooks that would be potentially
`
`subject to exclusion in this Investigation are sold and used by state and local government police
`
`departments, fire departments, and other emergency departments, all of which use them for
`
`purposes that benefit the public interest and specifically to serve the public health, safety and
`
`welfare needs of local citizens.10 These products are used daily to carry out meaningful health and
`
`safety tasks directly connected to the public welfare, including security, law enforcement, and
`
`safety services. The requested remedial orders would impede the importation and sale of these
`
`products. Because of the vast usage of the accused Panasonic Respondents’ products by state and
`
`local police, fire and emergency departments, excluding the Panasonic Toughbooks at issue here
`
`would raise serious public health, safety and welfare concerns.
`
`Complainants state but cite no evidence that “[i]ssuance of the requested remedial orders
`
`would have no adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare in the United States” and that
`
`“access to the Accused Products does not implicate any meaningful public health, safety, or
`
`welfare concern.” (Complainants’ Statement at 3). Contrary to Complainants’ unsupported
`
`assertion, the disruptive effect of Complainants’ requested relief would leave the many state and
`
`local emergency departments who use these products daily to help keep the public safe with no
`
`supplier that provides a comparable mobile product capable of operating in “the toughest
`
`environments.”
`
`The Panasonic Respondents therefore respectfully request that the Commission instruct the
`
`ALJ to take evidence on the public interest to provide the Commission with the information
`
`necessary to ascertain and assess the full extent and impact of this disruption to the public welfare.
`
`
`10 See https://na.panasonic.com/us/industries/government/toughbook-law-enforcement-solutions
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`III. Complainants Cite to No Evidence That They or Their Licensees Make in the United
`States any Like or Directly Competitive Articles, Nor Do Complainants Cite to Any
`Evidence That They or Their Licensees Have the Capacity to Replace the Volume of
`Accused Panasonic Toughbook Laptops in a Commercially Reasonable Time
`
`Complainants have failed to show that they or their licensees, or other third-parties, have
`
`the ability or capacity to replace the Panasonic Toughbook products at local and state government
`
`emergency department if they were excluded from the United States. Significantly, Complainants
`
`provide no indication that their products or others’ products would be suited to for the same
`
`emergency uses connected to the public safety and welfare as the Panasonic Toughbook products
`
`are. Indeed, they cannot make such a showing. The ruggedized Panasonic Toughbook products
`
`uniquely serve this sector in a way that other products on the market do not.
`
`IV.
`
`The Requested Relief Would Have a Negative Effect on U.S. Consumers
`
`Complainants state that their requested remedial orders will not have an adverse impact on
`
`U.S. consumers, but they fail to cite any information to support this claim, particularly as to the
`
`Panasonic Toughbook products. (Complainants’ Statement at 5.) Because the Panasonic
`
`Toughbook products specifically serve state and local emergency department markets and are used
`
`specifically in areas relating to public safety and health and welfare, Complainants’ requested
`
`relief would deprive them of these products, decrease their ability to serve and protect the public
`
`welfare, and therefore have a negative effect on U.S. consumers.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons stated herein, Complainants’ requested remedies, if issued, would cause
`
`serious harm to the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission should order the Administrative
`
`Law Judge to take evidence on the public interest and develop a full factual record to determine
`
`the extent to which the broad requested relief would disrupt and be contrary to the public interest.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Date: December 5, 2022
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Benjamin Levi
`Benjamin Levi
`LEVI SNOTHERLY & SCHAUMBERG, PLLC
`1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 450
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 997-3711
`
`Joseph M. Casino
`Michael J. Kasdan
`Wiggin and Dana, LLP
`437 Madison Avenue
`35th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`
`Counsel for Proposed Respondents
`Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic
`Corporation of North America
`
`-6-
`
`

`

` Via Hand Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Filing
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Service:
`
`
`elangdon@fabricantllp.com
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following as indicated
`on December 5, 2022:
`
`The Honorable Katherine Hiner
`Acting Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street S.W., Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`For the Complainants AGIS Software
`Development LLC and Advanced Ground
`Information Systems, Inc.
`
`Evan H. Langdon, Esq.
`Fabricant LLP
`1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 300
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Benjamin Levi
`Benjamin Levi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`