More SONAR WARS in Court

Electrical and electronic topics for small boats
jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:25 pm

About a year ago, an article in the old forum discussed the multiple legal actions going on among five electronic manufacturers defending their patented methods regarding SONAR techniques. GARMIN was a favorite target as it was getting sued by three of its four competitors.

JOHNSON OUTDOORS, the parent company of HUMMINBIRD electronics, announced a few weeks ago that the International Trade Commission had found in its favor on complaints against Garmin which claimed that Garmin was importing electronic products manufactured overseas that infringed several of its patents, mostly patents related to side-scan SONAR techniques. Their press release said:

"...the full International Trade Commission (ITC) has affirmed the initial determination by the Administrative Law Judge that Garmin International, Inc. violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling SideVü sonars, which the ITC affirmed infringe a Johnson Outdoors Inc. side scan sonar patent used in certain Humminbird® fishfinders."

Jefecinco
Posts: 1592
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:35 pm
Location: Gulf Shores, AL

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby Jefecinco » Wed Dec 02, 2015 8:40 am

If this is the final word on the matter it is a significant victory for Humminbird. I wonder what happens next. I assume some sort of compensation will be required.
Butch

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:03 am

An announcement from the United States International Trade Commission gives some details about which patents were claimed to be infringed and which were actually found to be infringed. See

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspect ... -29857.pdf

The announcement said the investigation had found violation by Garmin in connection with claims 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 33 of the U.S. Patent No. 7,755,974. The investigation did not find other claims of violation of other patents to be supported by their findings.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:12 am

From the '974 patent (see link above), here are several of the asserted claims of the invention. For readability, I have included all the claims in this section. The claims found to be violated by GARMIN are marked in RED text:

14. A sonar system for use with a boat to provide enhanced underwater images, the system comprising:

--a left side scan sonar transducer positioned within a housing mounted to the boat for transmitting a left side scan sonar beam of pulses and for receiving left side scan sonar return signals, wherein the left side scan transducer has a total length of up to about seven inches and a total width of up to about 0.5 inches, and wherein the left side scan sonar pulses are directed downward and laterally outward to a left side of a boat, the left side scan sonar beam having a narrow horizontal width and a wide vertical width;

--a right side scan sonar transducer positioned within the housing for transmitting a right side scan sonar beam of pulses and for receiving right side scan sonar return signals, wherein the right side scan sonar transducer has a total length of up to about seven inches and a total width of up to about 0.5 inches, and wherein the right side scan sonar pulses are directed downward and laterally outward to a right side of the boat, the right side scan sonar beam having a narrow horizontal width and a wide vertical width;

--signal processing circuitry for processing the left and right side scan sonar return signals to produce side scan image data;

--a user interface including user inputs and a display; and

--a digital processor for providing signals to the display to show an enhanced underwater image that provides details of underwater articles and contains shadows, wherein the digital processor, in response to a user input, performs an image enhancement algorithm upon the side scan image data to produce the enhanced underwater image.

15. The system of claim 14, wherein the image enhancement algorithm comprises user adjustable time variable gain optimization.

16. The system of claim 14, wherein the image enhancement algorithm comprises a fish finding algorithm to differentiate between side scan sonar return signals from fish and other side scan sonar return signals.

17. The system of claim 14, and further comprising:

--a downward sonar transducer positioned within the housing between the left and right side scan sonar transducers for transmitting a downward sonar beam of pulses and receiving downward sonar return signals, wherein the signal processing circuitry processes the downward sonar return signals to produce downward depth values, and wherein the image enhancement algorithm uses the downward depth values to correct slant angle range information.

18. The system of claim 14 wherein each of the left and right side scan sonar transducers has a total length of about three inches to about seven inches and a total width of about 0.125 inches to about 0.5 inches.

19. The system of claim 18, wherein the image enhancement algorithm comprises differential amplitude filtering to filter noise.

20. The system of claim 19, wherein each of the left and right side scan sonar transducers is mounted to the boat in a position that detects noise caused by spark plug operation, and wherein the differential amplitude filtering filters the spark plug noise.

21. The system of claim 18 wherein each of the left and right side scan sonar transducers is oriented within the housing at a depression angle of between about 20 degrees and 40 degrees as measured from horizontal.

22. The system of claim 21 wherein the depression angle is about 30 degrees.

23. The system of claim 22 wherein each side scan acoustic element operates at a plurality of frequencies, at least one of the plurality of frequencies being between about 260 kHz and about 462 kHz.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:29 am

I cannot find in the patent a claim 33. Perhaps there is an amended filing that adds that one or it was removed from the last filing. This patent was filed in 2009, so Humminbird has been asserting their claim to this invention for about six years.

Most of the infringement seems to be related to the physical dimensions of the transducer and the arrangement of the elements in the transducer. If that is true, it would seem that Garmin might be able to work around those limitations by avoiding the particular design of the transducer.

I believe that Lowrance was able to avoid infringement by altering the physical dimensions of their transducer to be outside the bounds mentioned in the patent claim.

U.S. Patent No. 7,755,974 as a PDF file is also available on-line.

Peter
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:52 am

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby Peter » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:36 pm

jimh wrote:I cannot find in the patent a claim 33. Perhaps there is an amended filing that adds that one or it was removed from the last filing. This patent was filed in 2009, so Humminbird has been asserting their claim to this invention for about six years.

Most of the infringement seems to be related to the physical dimensions of the transducer and the arrangement of the elements in the transducer. If that is true, it would seem that Garmin might be able to work around those limitations by avoiding the particular design of the transducer.

I believe that Lowrance was able to avoid infringement by altering the physical dimensions of their transducer to be outside the bounds mentioned in the patent claim.


There is a reexamination certificate issued for that patent. See http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7755974.pdf for the entire patent document as amended by the reexamination certificate.

Unless there is something really critical about the 7 x 0.5 inch dimension limits, the work around for that patent seems hypothetically easy -- Make the transducer 7 1/2 inches long or 3/4 inch wide.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:47 pm

Peter--Thanks for hunting down the 33 claim. It appears in EXPARTE REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE (9647th) issued May 13, 2013. The claimed Humminbird invention which has been found to have been violated by Garmin reads:

33. The sonar system of claim 14, wherein the housing has no openings on its surface aligned with the left and right side scan sonar transducers.

Also note the inventors are David Betts, Robert Derrow, and David Howells. The patent has been assigned to Johnson Outdoors Inc., the parent company of Humminbird.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:59 pm

Adding to GARMIN's legal problems, the USITC also announced just recently (yesterday, December 2, 2015) that Garmin has been found to be violating NAVICO patents. This time not for side scan but for high-frequency down scan SONAR, which Garmin has branded as DownVu and Navico calls DownScan Imaging. A press release from Navico said:

EGERSUND, Norway, Dec. 2, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Navico – the world's largest manufacturer of marine electronics and parent company to the Lowrance®, Simrad®, B&G® and GoFree® brands -- announced today that the International Trade Commission (ITC) has ruled that Garmin Ltd. DownVu™ scanning sonar products violate Navico's patents for DownScan Imaging™ technology. This ruling reverses an initial determination issued by an Administrative Law Judge this past July, previously announced by Garmin Ltd. (NASDAQ: GRMN). In addition, this is the second adverse ruling in two weeks by the ITC that finds that Garmin is violating sonar patents.

The ITC DownVu ruling prohibits Garmin from importing, selling, advertising, and aiding or assisting distributors or retailers in selling all its infringing DownVu products, including the echo, echoMAP and GPSMAP products with their respective transducers. Specifically, the Commission has issued a Cease and Desist Order barring Garmin and its distributors from selling, or aiding others in the sale of, these products and has also issued an Exclusion Order directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reject their importation.

While all ITC orders have a 60-day period before taking full effect, effective immediately resellers of Garmin DownVu products risk willfully infringing Navico's patents if they continue to sell Garmin DownVu products, and they could be subject to an infringement suit. Therefore, Navico advises against any distributor, dealer or retailer continuing marketing or selling these products and recommends that resellers seek independent legal advice if they have any questions in this matter. In addition, the ITC has ruled that Garmin must post a bond equal to 100 percent of the value of infringing products when they sell from inventory or import any of these products into the U.S. during the 60-day review period.

Further, any Garmin products claiming to feature a "design around" solution are subject to ITC or U.S. Customs approval in order to confirm that such an alternative solution does not likewise violate Navico's patents. As of this writing, Garmin has not initiated the process of submitting alternative designs.

Garmin could file an appeal with a U.S. Federal Court in an attempt to challenge the factual conclusions or show the law was incorrectly applied by the ITC; however, in the meantime, the importation and sale of Garmin products featuring DownVu technology are subject to the ITC ruling and violate Navico's patents, effective immediately.

"We are extremely pleased that the ITC has ruled in our favor," said Leif Ottosson, CEO, Navico. "Our innovative DownScan Imaging provides real benefits to fishermen, and we have invested considerable time, effort and resources to develop and bring it to market. Our patents are designed to protect that investment.

"We offered our competitors the opportunity to license our technology and incorporate it into their products for the benefit of their customers – and many have. This offer was also made to Garmin, but they declined – putting everyone who sells their products in a difficult position. The situation is unfortunate for many dealers and distributors in the marine electronics marketplace, but we will continue to vigorously defend the intellectual property that protects our innovations and our leading position in the marketplace."

The International Trade Commission is an independent governmental agency in Washington, DC, responsible for addressing patent infringement disputes relating to goods that are manufactured abroad and imported into the United States. Garmin's DownVu Products are manufactured and imported from Taiwan.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:41 pm

GARMIN sent out a press release in response to the USITC ruling. Here is an excerpt:

December 2, 2015

OLATHE, Kan.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Garmin International Inc., a unit of Garmin Ltd. (NASDAQ:GRMN), today announced that the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a final determination in the investigation brought by Navico Holdings AS against Garmin. The ITC reversed an earlier decision by an administrative law judge and concluded that first generation Garmin DownVüTM scanning sonar products were too similar to at least one patented aspect of Navico DownScan technology. The ITC recommended that these Garmin products be excluded from import into the United States. The ITC also found that some asserted claims of one of Navico's patents were invalid, that there was no infringement of one of Navico's patents by any Garmin products, and that one Garmin scanning sonar system design did not infringe any of Navico's patents.

"Garmin intentionally designed its products to prevent infringement of Navico's patents. We disagree with the ITC and plan to appeal the determination," said Andrew Etkind, Garmin vice president and general counsel. "However, as with the Johnson Outdoors ITC determination we announced in November, we have already taken steps to ensure that we can continue to provide Garmin DownVü scanning sonar products. Garmin has already designed, implemented, and manufactured an alternative design that addresses the concern in this ITC ruling."

The ruling will have no impact on Garmin products already purchased by Garmin customers and dealers, or any products purchased going forward. The ITC expressly found that Garmin did not intend to infringe Navico's patents. Garmin will continue to vigorously defend the non-infringing configuration of these first generation DownVü scanning sonar products through appeals and an ongoing litigation in Oklahoma. The ITC ruling applies only to Garmin and has no impact on any existing dealer inventory or any products already purchased by our customers.

The impacted transducers will be available shortly with the alternative design solution. While the redesign does address the ITC's findings, end-users and dealers will not notice a change to user interface, installation or compatibility with existing Garmin products or accessories....


For the full text see: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151202006418/en/

Peter
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:52 am

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby Peter » Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:19 pm

jimh wrote:Peter--Thanks for hunting down the 33 claim. It appears in EXPARTE REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE (9647th) issed May 13, 2013. The claimed Humminbird invention which has been found to have been violated by Garmin reads:

33. The sonar system of claim 14, wherein the housing has no openings on its surface aligned with the left and right side scan sonar transducers.

Also note the inventors are David Betts, Robert Derrow, and David Howells. The patent has been assigned to Johnson Outdoors Inc., the parent company of Humminbird.


Claim 33 is a dependent claim adding more definition to the claimed subject matter. It must be read together with claim 14 and as such is actually narrower in scope than claim 14. The same would be true for all of the other claims other than claim 14 that were found violated as they are all connected to claim 14 either directly or indirectly.

Although not likely as to how it would be done, the infringement could be avoided simply by making one of the two side scan transducers substantially more than about seven inches in length, say 7 1/2 inches.

porthole
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:57 pm
Location: LSD Lower Slower Delaware

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby porthole » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:02 pm

[ASIDE ON THE TANGENTAL TOPIC OF SIDE SCAN IMAGING:] While doing some research to decide if I should keep my 997c I found these two pages of Humminbird side scan images.

[Dead link to another document has been deleted. The link was based on a session identification key, and the session had expired. The link then resulted in a 404-NOT FOUND result--jimh]
Thanks,
Duane
2016 World Cat 230DC
1999 Outrage 21, Yamaha SW Series II 200
1997 Outrage 18, Yamaha 125
1983 15 SS, Honda 50
1980 42 Post
1983 34 Luhrs 340 SF

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:17 am

As I understand patents, you cannot patent an idea, thus you cannot patent the idea of having side scan SONAR. You can only patent a method of implementing side scan SONAR, and your method must be some new invention of the general method previously used. It seems like all of the parts of the Garmin devices that have been sustained by the ITC examiner as being in violation of the patent claims of someone else are those in those patent claims in which particular dimensions of parts of the other inventions are given. As Peter noted regarding Garmin and as I also noted earlier regarding Lowrance, it would seem like infringement could be avoided by a similar device by avoiding the particular physical dimensions claimed by Humminbird to be part of their implementation of side scan SONAR. I believe Lowrance did just that, that is, their transducer apparatus has different physical dimensions than the patented invention of Humminbird.

It appears that Garmin has already changed some dimensions of their device to avoid infringement, but whether or not the USITC will agree with Garmin that their modified devices no longer infringes remains to be determined. I guess we stay tuned while the lawyers grind out their grist from the mill.

porthole
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:57 pm
Location: LSD Lower Slower Delaware

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby porthole » Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:18 am

I suppose I should have expanded a bit more. The patent actions piqued my interest in the Humminbird 997c I have and just removed from my boat. Seeing one giant, Humminbird, go after another giant, Garmin inferred there must be something more to the technology that I had originally not thought much of, these small boat side scan units.

Previously I have been involved with or able to observe the use of the very high end units, e.g. side scans like the Klein and DeepVision units and some pretty fancy sub surface bottom profilers. Some of this equipment was under Navy contracts searching for lost ordnance in our area (torpedoes mostly) and used extensively during the search for the TWA flight 800 remains.

Vince Capone, a local and renowned side scan expert thought enough of the Humminbird units (997c in particular) that he ran a course and produced a DVD for Public Safety units on the use of the 997.

The link to the Humminbird side scan images was one of the pages I eventually found. Capt Blaine Anderson had written an article on how great this new technology was. Although I have not been able to find that article, it was part of the patent claim. That claim document is the expiring link I posted. I will see if I can come up with a different way to post it since it seems I can't post a PDF on the forum.

[Moderator's note: attachment of PDF files is permitted now.
Thanks,
Duane
2016 World Cat 230DC
1999 Outrage 21, Yamaha SW Series II 200
1997 Outrage 18, Yamaha 125
1983 15 SS, Honda 50
1980 42 Post
1983 34 Luhrs 340 SF

Peter
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:52 am

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby Peter » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:00 am

jimh wrote:As I understand patents, you cannot patent an idea, thus you cannot patent the idea of having side scan SONAR. You can only patent a method of implementing side scan SONAR, and your method must be some new invention of the general method previously used. It seems like all of the parts of the Garmin devices that have been sustained by the ITC examiner as being in violation of the patent claims of someone else are those in those patent claims in which particular dimensions of parts of the other inventions are given. As Peter noted regarding Garmin and as I also noted earlier regarding Lowrance, it would seem like infringement could be avoided by a similar device by avoiding the particular physical dimensions claimed by Humminbird to be part of their implementation of side scan SONAR. I believe Lowrance did just that, that is, their transducer apparatus has different physical dimensions than the patented invention of Humminbird.

It appears that Garmin has already changed some dimensions of their device to avoid infringement, but whether or not the USITC will agree with Garmin that their modified devices no longer infringes remains to be determined. I guess we stay tuned while the lawyers grind out their grist from the mill.


Abstract ideas cannot be patented but tangible implementation of ideas ("inventions") can be patented assuming the idea meets all the requirements of the patent laws including that the invention is new and it is not obvious to do it in the claimed way in the eyes of someone having ordinary skill in that art.

Most inventions are incremental improvements on something that previously existed. While I haven't read the patent document and do not know all the problems associated with implementation of side scan sonar for recreational boating, the inclusion of dimensions in the claim suggests that the invention is at best a small incremental improvement over what has been done before solving some particular problem.

The list of citations in the patent cites patents from the 1970s by Westinghouse for side scan sonar so it would appear that the idea and general implementation of side scan was not invented by Johnson Outdoors. Not clear that it was invented by Westinghouse either but clearly Westinghouse coming before Johnson Outdoors indicates it was not invented by Johnson Outdoors.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:56 pm

In the '974 patent there is also a claim about time controlled gain and user adjustment of it.

15. The system of claim 14, wherein the image enhancement algorithm comprises user adjustable time variable gain optimization.

Back in c.1975 I was working for an electronic instrument manufacturer (Branson Instrument Co.) that made ultrasonic flaw detection instruments. That company introduced a time-controlled gain feature. I believe it was patented--or at least a patent was applied for--because the user interface was very crafty. On the CRT screen, the gain slope of the receiver could be displayed on the the time base line, allowing the user to see exactly how the gain variation was being accomplished with time. So the notion of varying the gain of an ultrasonic detector with time is nothing new, nor is having the user be able to adjust it. That was c.1974 technology in commercial ultrasonic test instrumentation.

Peter
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:52 am

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby Peter » Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:36 pm

Apparently the time variable gain optimization feature was not used by Garmin.

Keep in mind that a combination of old things in a new and unobvious way can be a patentable invention.

porthole
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:57 pm
Location: LSD Lower Slower Delaware

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby porthole » Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:26 pm

This is the document I posted about previously.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hjokzjxtykhmfae/Humminbird-Garmin_01712324363.pdf?dl=0

[The dropbox link works fine--jimh]
Thanks,
Duane
2016 World Cat 230DC
1999 Outrage 21, Yamaha SW Series II 200
1997 Outrage 18, Yamaha 125
1983 15 SS, Honda 50
1980 42 Post
1983 34 Luhrs 340 SF

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:09 am

I have not found the actual USITC report about their investigation of the violation by Garmin of Navico patent claims that shows what specific claims were found to be in violation. I did find an earlier report that said no violation was found, but that may have been reconsidered on an appeal and a different finding resulted.

It is more interesting to know the specifics of the USITC investigation and findings, that is, exactly what part of Navico's invention has been improperly used by Garmin. I wonder if the violation is again limited to dimensional elements of the transducer.

Garmin asserts it has already redesigned the offending products in a way that avoids using any of the patented methods of Navico. I cannot imagine they could completely redesign the actual electronic product in such a short time. Again, I wonder if the redesign accommodation made by Garmin could have been something as simple as changing a physical dimension of the transducer.

Peter
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:52 am

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby Peter » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:59 am

jimh wrote:I have not found the actual USITC report about their investigation of the violation by Garmin of Navico patent claims that shows what specific claims were found to be in violation. I did find an earlier report that said no violation was found, but that may have been reconsidered on an appeal and a different finding resulted.

It is more interesting to know the specifics of the USITC investigation and findings, that is, exactly what part of Navico's invention has been improperly used by Garmin. I wonder if the violation is again limited to dimensional elements of the transducer.

Garmin asserts it has already redesigned the offending products in a way that avoids using any of the patented methods of Navico. I cannot imagine they could completely redesign the actual electronic product in such a short time. Again, I wonder if the redesign accommodation made by Garmin could have been something as simple as changing a physical dimension of the transducer.


To infringe a patent claim, all attributes of the claim have to exist in the accused product. If any single attribute is missing then the claim is not infringed. So to the extent that a claim to a transducer includes dimensional attributes "such as up to 7 inches long" then to make the transducer substantially more than 7 inches long while having all the other attributes exactly would be enough to find the transducer does not infringe.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:21 am

Regarding the dispute between Garmin and Navico, the best summary of the actions of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) comes, not surprisingly, from a report made by the USITC itself, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2015. (Another source of the report is the Federal Register.)

To review the events in this action in brief:

--in 2014 Navico complained to USITC that certain Garmin marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, infringed their U.S. Patents No. 8,300,499, No. 8,305,840, and No. 8,605,550;

(The complete complaint from Navico is available for your legal and SONAR reading pleasure. It contains what are said to be non-technical descriptions of the inventions described in the patents. )

--July 2014 USITC instituted an investigation

--July 2105 an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a final initial determination finding no violation with respect to all three asserted patents;

(An earlier article gives more details about those proceedings.)

--soon after Navico filed for a review and challenged the ALJ ruling

--September 2015 the USITC determined it would review the matter

--December 2015 the USITC determined:

...that Navico has proven a violation of section 337 based on infringement of
claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16-19, 23, 32, 39-41, 63, and 70-72 of the ’840 patent and
infringement of claims 32 and 44 of the ’550 patent. The Commission has determined
to modify the ALJ’s construction of certain terms in the asserted claims of the asserted patents,
including “single linear downscan transducer element” recited in the ’840 patent and its variants
recited in the ’550 and ’499 patents. Under the modified constructions, the Commission has
determined Navico has proven that

(i) the accused Garmin echo products, echoMAP products and GPSMAP products with their
respective transducers infringe claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16-19, 23, 32, 39-41, and 70-72 of the ’840 patent;

(ii) the accused Garmin echoMAP products and GPSMAP products with their
respective transducers infringe claim 63 of the ’840 patent;

(iii) the accused Garmin GCV10 and GSD25 sonar modules with their respective transducers infringe
claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 23, and 32 of the ’840 patent;

(iv) the accused Garmin GT30 transducer, which comes with the GCV10 sonar module,
infringes claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 57 of the ’550 patent; and

(v) the accused Garmin GT30 transducer, in conjunction with the GCV10 sonar module,
infringes claims 32 and 44 of the ’550 patent.

The Commission has determined Garmin has not proven that the asserted claims
of the ’840 patent are invalid. The Commission has determined that Garmin has proven
that claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 57 of the ’550 patent are invalid as obvious, but that
Garmin has not proven that claims 32 and 44 of the ’550 patent are invalid. The
Commission has also determined that Navico has proven that a domestic industry exists in the
United States for the ’550 patent.

The Commission has determined that Navico has not proven a violation with respect to
the ’499 patent. The Commission has determined to adopt, on modified grounds, the ALJ’s
construction of the term “combining” (and its variants) recited in the asserted claims of the ’499
patent. Under that construction, the Commission has determined that the asserted claims are not
invalid and not infringed.

The Commission has determined the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order and
a cease and desist order prohibiting Garmin from importing into the United States or selling or
distributing within the United States certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan
and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe the
asserted claims of the ’840 and ’550 patents.


So now we know exactly what patents and what claims in those patents have been found by the USITC to be infringed.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:39 am

Following the favorable ruling, Navico issued a press release which contained several cautions or advice to retailers relating to sale of Garmin products. In response, Garmin sent out this notice to its dealers:

December 3, 2015
Service Bulletin Re: Garmin to Appeal ITC Judgment in Navico Patent Case

There has been a lot of speculation as a result of the ruling from the International Trade Commission (ITC) on December 1, in the patent infringement case brought by Navico against Garmin. An ITC administrative law judge previously concluded that Garmin's DownVue scanning sonar products did not infringe any of Navico's patents. The ITC reversed that decision and concluded that first generation Garmin DownVue scanning sonar products were too similar to at least one patented aspect of Navico's DownScan technology.

While the ruling is disappointing, Garmin intentionally designed its products to prevent infringement of Navico's patents and we will appeal this determination. We will continue to stand behind our products and continue to believe our first generation DownVue design does not infringe anyone's patents.

The communication being distributed by Navico, specifically as it pertains to the legality of the continued sale of Garmin products, is inaccurate and misleading. As a valued Garmin customer, we'd like to reiterate what this ruling means for our partners and customers going forward, and address any concerns you may have.

To summarize the Q&A below, the ITC ruling applies only to Garmin and has no impact on any existing dealer inventory or any products already purchased by our customers.

What products are affected by this ruling?
The products affected in this ruling are Garmin fishfinders and combination units that are sold with a DownVue transducer. This applies to the GCV 10 and select echo, echoMAP and GPSMAP models that are sold with the transducer inside the box, which include:
echo 551dv, 301dv, 201dv & 151dv
echoMAP 94sv, 93sv, 74sv, 73sv, 74dv, 73dv, 54dv, 53dv, 44dv & 43dv
GPSMAP 840xs, 1040xs & 1020xs

The ITC ruling does not apply to any standalone fishfinders or chartplotters that are not bundled with a transducer. The ruling also does not apply to any accessory transducers.

What is Garmin doing as a result of this ruling?
Garmin has already taken steps to ensure that we can continue to provide our DownVue scanning sonar products. We are no longer shipping the affected products, and we have designed, implemented and manufactured an alternative design that addresses the concern in this ITC ruling. These updated products will be available very soon with the alternative design.

Is any action required by customers who have already purchased these products, or by dealers who have existing inventory?
No. The ruling has no impact on Garmin products already purchased by Garmin customers and dealers, or any products purchased going forward. Any existing inventory of Garmin products is not impacted in any way. Customers and dealers do not need to return any products.

Can dealers continue to lawfully sell and advertise Garmin products as a result of this ruling?
Yes. The ITC ruling applies only to Garmin and has no impact on any existing dealer inventory or any products already purchased by our customers. Garmin stands behind its products and our partnerships, and would not put our customers or dealers in a compromising situation that could open them up for liability. U.S. law is clear that the ITC orders DO NOT APPLY to any downstream customers, distributors etc.

I'm a customer who already purchased one of these products. Is it illegal? Can I return it? Will Garmin service it if it breaks?
Garmin products purchased by customers and dealers before this ruling, and those purchased going forward, are not illegal. We will continue to service the affected products or replace them with devices under the same terms of the warranty that came with the original device. Additional information about our warranty policy can be found at: http://www8.garmin.com/support/pdf/marine_warranty.pdf.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:55 am

Following the unfavorable ruling by the USITC, Garmin also issued this press release:

December 2, 2015
OLATHE, Kan.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Garmin International Inc., a unit of Garmin Ltd. (NASDAQ: GRMN), today announced that the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a final determination in the investigation brought by Navico Holdings AS against Garmin. The ITC reversed an earlier decision by an administrative law judge and concluded that first generation Garmin DownVueTM scanning sonar products were too similar to at least one patented aspect of Navico DownScan technology. The ITC recommended that these Garmin products be excluded from import into the United States. The ITC also found that some asserted claims of one of Navico's patents were invalid, that there was no infringement of one of Navico's patents by any Garmin products, and that one Garmin scanning sonar system design did not infringe any of Navico's patents.

"Garmin intentionally designed its products to prevent infringement of Navico's patents. We disagree with the ITC and plan to appeal the determination," said Andrew Etkind, Garmin vice president and general counsel. "However, as with the Johnson Outdoors ITC determination we announced in November, we have already taken steps to ensure that we can continue to provide Garmin DownVue scanning sonar products. Garmin has already designed, implemented, and manufactured an alternative design that addresses the concern in this ITC ruling."

The ruling will have no impact on Garmin products already purchased by Garmin customers and dealers, or any products purchased going forward. The ITC expressly found that Garmin did not intend to infringe Navico's patents. Garmin will continue to vigorously defend the non-infringing configuration of these first generation DownVue scanning sonar products through appeals and an ongoing litigation in Oklahoma. The ITC ruling applies only to Garmin and has no impact on any existing dealer inventory or any products already purchased by our customers.

The impacted transducers will be available shortly with the alternative design solution. While the redesign does address the ITC's findings, end-users and dealers will not notice a change to user interface, installation or compatibility with existing Garmin products or accessories.


In the press release, Garmin does not specifically say it is going to appeal the USITC ruling. It says it will produce "alternative design solutions." In the service bulletin to dealers, however, Garmin says, "We disagree with the ITC and plan to appeal the determination." I find that a bit curious.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:00 am

Equally curious and quite informative, is this statement contained in the Service Bulletin:

The ITC ruling does not apply to any standalone fishfinders or chartplotters that are not bundled with a transducer.


This implies to me that the disputed claims again seem to be limited to certain aspects of the transducers used for side scanning SONAR. The infringing devices are apparently not in the electronic of the SONARs, but in the design of their transducers.

Peter
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:52 am

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby Peter » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:13 am

jimh wrote:Equally curious and quite informative, is this statement contained in the Service Bulletin:

The ITC ruling does not apply to any standalone fishfinders or chartplotters that are not bundled with a transducer.


This implies to me that the disputed claims again seem to be limited to certain aspects of the transducers used for side scanning SONAR. The infringing devices are apparently not in the electronic of the SONARs, but in the design of their transducers.


This is correct. Basically, the first sentence of the ITC decision previously quoted above sums up this round of activity at the ITC, namely:

1. claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16-19, 23, 32, 39-41, 63, and 70-72 of the ’840 are valid and infringed by various Garmin products,
2. claims 32 and 44 of the 550 patent are valid and infringed by various Garmin products,
3. the asserted claims of the '499 patent are valid but not infringed.

It's not unusual for the parties to seek review of an adverse court or ITC determination regarding the questions of infringement and validity. Navico did this after the unfavorable July determination by the ALJ. The outcome of patent cases often hinge on the interpretation of words in the claims. It seems that the difference between the ALJ outcome and the ITC review outcome hinged on the meaning of "single linear downscan transducer element".

Claim 1 of the '840 patent defines

A sonar assembly for imaging an underwater environment beneath a watercraft traveling on a surface of a body of water, the sonar assembly comprising:

a housing mountable to the watercraft;

a single linear downscan transducer element positioned within the housing, the linear downscan transducer element having a substantially rectangular shape configured to produce a fan-shaped sonar beam having a relatively narrow beamwidth in a direction parallel to a longitudinal length of the linear downscan transducer element and a relatively wide beamwidth in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal length of the transducer element, the linear downscan transducer element being positioned with the longitudinal length thereof extending in a fore-to-aft direction of the housing;

wherein the linear downscan transducer element is positioned within the housing to project fan-shaped sonar beams in a direction substantially perpendicular to a plane corresponding to the surface of the body of water, said sonar beams being repeatedly emitted so as to sequentially insonify different fan-shaped regions of the underwater environment as the watercraft travels; and

a sonar signal processor receiving signals representative of sonar returns resulting from each of the fan-shaped sonar beams and processing the signals to produce sonar image data for each fan-shaped region and to create an image of the underwater environment as a composite of images of the fan-shaped regions arranged in a progressive order corresponding to the travel of the watercraft.


To infringe this claim you need to have the combination of a transducer and a sonar signal processor receiving the transducer signals. A bundle consisting of a fishfinder and a transducer would meet that. A transducer or a fishfinder alone would not.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:59 am

Does that mean Garmin can sell the transducer separately and not infringe? All they'd have to do is stop bundling the transducer and the chart plotter-SONAR unit.

[NOTE: thread continues on page 2]

Peter
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:52 am

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby Peter » Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:17 am

The ITC issued a cease and desist order prohibiting Garmin from importing into the United States or selling or distributing within the United States certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof. Not sure how to interpret "components thereof".

Clearly, the claim defines a combination of a transducer and image processor, not one or the other. And the claim wording seems to require that the system be active... "a sonar signal processor receiving signals representative of sonar returns....."

Peter
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:52 am

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby Peter » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:24 pm

The Navico patents were the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initiated by Raymarine. Raymarine's IPR petition was granted, which means that they raised a sufficient question as to the validity of at least one claim in the patent. The IPR proceeding was settled by the parties before there was a final decision by the board.

In the proceeding with respect to the '840 patent, there were a number of claim interpretation problems to be decided by the board including the phrase "a single linear downscan transducer element" .

Raymarine took the position that “a single linear downscan transducer” means “a downwardly directed transducer comprising either a single monolithic rectangular shaped transducer element or a plurality of transducer elements arranged end-to-end and electrically connected to act as a single rectangular element.”

Navico disagreed with Raymarine and argued that the phrase excludes a multi-element array and means “a substantially rectangular element, or a plurality of connected substantially rectangular elements operating as a single substantially rectangular element, pointed downwardly.”

The board concluded, under the broadest reasonable interpretation methodology that it uses, that "a single linear downscan transducer element" means “a downwardly directed or pointed transducer that is substantially rectangular in shape, which may be formed from a single monolithic element, or a plurality of elements arranged to function as a single transducer."

It seems to me that Garmin or others could possibly avoid this by placing two downscan transducers in the housing (possibly side by side), operate each of those sequentially so that they do not function as a single transducer and then stitch the signals together in the processor to form the image. Perhaps there is some loss of accuracy because the spatial position of the transducers is slightly different but I suspect that a smart processor could probably compensate for that.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Fri May 06, 2016 6:20 pm

News came yesterday that GARMIN and JOHNSON OUTDOORS (the parent company of Humminbird) have reached a settlement in their patent infringement dispute. The executive summary: Garmin recognizes the Johnson Outdoors patents and will license them. The are no public announcement of the details of the licensing agreement.

Here is the press release from Johnson Outdoors:

--begin press release---

RACINE, Wis, May 05, 2016

Johnson Outdoors Inc. and Garmin International, Inc., a subsidiary of Garmin Ltd. today announced the companies have reached agreement on a settlement which resolves litigation involving Johnson Outdoors’ patented side scan sonar technology. Today’s announcement follows the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) rulings in the matter affirming infringement by Garmin of one Johnson Outdoors’ patent and non-infringement of two Johnson Outdoors’ patents. The agreement, which includes the licensing of these patents to Garmin, will bring closure to related legal matters pending before the ITC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Terms of the agreement are confidential.

“Innovation is our lifeblood and what Johnson Outdoors has delivered consistently for nearly 50 years. It is the driving force behind our legacy of continuous growth and success. This is why we invest heavily in development and protection of our proprietary innovation and vigorously defend it against unauthorized use. Today’s announced settlement and licensing agreement are the latest acknowledgements of the validity of our side scan sonar patents by our competitors as affirmed consistently by the courts,” said Helen Johnson-Leipold, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Johnson Outdoors.

“Garmin recognizes Johnson Outdoors and Humminbird’s innovation in side scan fishfinder technology,” said Cliff Pemble, President & CEO, Garmin International, Inc. “We understand that patents are a great accomplishment, a prized achievement by innovation leaders, including Johnson Outdoors and Humminbird®. We are pleased with the amicable resolution of this matter and respect Johnson Outdoors for working with Garmin to license this technology.”

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:14 am

The SONAR WARS continue with the announcement from the International Trade Commission (ITC) of another ruling in the dispute between Garmin and Navico over infringement by Garmin of Navico patents occurring in the Garmin DownVu products. This time the dispute seems to be over what the ITC actually said in their ruling.

NAVICO announced the following opinion of the ruling:

EGERSUND, Norway, Aug. 25, 2016

Navico – the world's largest manufacturer of marine electronics and parent company to the Lowrance®, Simrad®, B&G® and GoFree® brands – announced today that on August 18, 2016 the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled yet again that Garmin DownVü™ scanning sonar products may not be imported into the United States, because they violate Navico's patents for DownScan Imaging™ technology. This latest ruling confirms that Garmin has been improperly circumventing the ITC's December 2015 exclusion order. The ITC issued a modified exclusion order clarifying the scope of infringing DownVü products that are barred from importation. The order has already been distributed to the United States Customs and Border Protection agency, and its requirements are effective immediately.

This ruling vindicates Navico's assertion that Garmin's DownVü product offerings violate Navico's sonar patents and the ITC's orders. Additionally, the ITC's Cease and Desist Orders remain active, barring Garmin and its distributors from selling or aiding others in the sale of these products. The ITC's orders will block the import, sale and promotion of current DownVü products, including the Striker, echoMAP and GPSMAP products sold with their respective transducers. Garmin's violations of the ITC's orders open the door to potential civil penalties.


GARMIN disagreed with that interpretation of the new ruling, and responded as follows:

August 29, 2016

OLATHE, Kan.--Garmin International Inc., a unit of Garmin Ltd. (NASDAQ: GRMN), today announced its response to a modified order by the International Trade Commission (ITC) on August 18, 2016, in the long-running investigation brought by Navico Holdings AS against Garmin. The modified ITC order did not address Garmin’s new tilted DownVü™ scanning sonar transducer design – which Garmin strongly asserts does not infringe – that has been shipping since last December when the previous decision was made by the ITC. The status of Garmin’s new tilted transducer design relative to any of Navico’s patents is still a matter pending before the courts and government agencies, and Navico has never accused Garmin’s new tilted design of infringement before the ITC. On August 25, 2016, Navico issued a press release regarding the ITC’s modified order that incorrectly asserts that the new tilted design infringes on their patents as no court or government agency has ever made any infringement ruling on Garmin’s new tilted transducer design.

In fact, the modified ITC order confirmed the ITC’s previous decision made in December 2015, that Garmin can import and sell Garmin DownVü scanning sonar transducers, including the original design, because they do not separately infringe any valid claim of Navico’s patents. The modified ITC order also left in place the ITC’s earlier decision that Garmin’s chartplotters do not infringe any of Navico’s patents. It clarifies the certification language that Garmin may use when importing its transducers which is a procedural matter. The modified ITC order applies only to Garmin and has no impact on any existing distributor, dealer, or retailer inventory or any products already purchased by our customers.

Garmin fully cooperated with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) after the ITC’s original order to ensure that the importation of its products was in full compliance with the ITC’s order. Garmin is currently cooperating with CBP to ensure compliance with the ITC’s modified order and will provide relevant information to our distributors, dealers, and retailers as it becomes available.

All of these problems are currently pending before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court with review authority over the ITC, and Garmin anticipates a definitive ruling on these topics in early 2017.


So not only do we have a dispute about patent infringement, we now have a dispute about what actual ruling has been issued by the ITC in this matter. To make this situation even more unclear, the ITC has not yet publicly published their latest ruling. Numerous boating related publications have cited this ruling and made reference to it, yet no actual source for the ruling has been provided. A careful search of the website at usitc.gov failed to find it, as well. I presume it soon will be made public.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:44 am

I have been searching for new public notices from the USITC in the matter of the GARMIN v. NAVICO case, which is USITC Investigation No. 337-TA-921. The "337" designation means the investigation involves infringement of intellectual property:

Section 337 investigations conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission most often involve claims regarding intellectual property rights, including allegations of patent infringement and trademark infringement by imported goods. Both utility and design patents, as well as registered and common law trademarks, may be asserted in these investigations. Other forms of unfair competition involving imported products, such as infringement of registered copyrights, mask works or boat hull designs, misappropriation of trade secrets or trade dress, passing off, and false advertising, may also be asserted.


The USITC has a webpage which tracks public notices about Section 377 investigations:

https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337.htm

You can filter the results by year. Finally, I found the notice about which the two parties involved seem to hold completely opposite opinions. Here is the link:

https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg ... 016sgl.pdf

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:30 pm

Further to the above, the August 2016 notice from the USITC reads as follows:

In the Matter of
CERTAIN MARINE SONAR IMAGING
DEVICES, INCLUDING DOWNSCAN
AND SIDESCAN DEVICES, PRODUCTS
CONTAINING THE SAME, AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF

Investigation No. 337-TA-921

NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION
TO GRANT A PETITION FOR MODIFICATION;
ISSUANCE OF A MODIFIED LIMITED EXCLUSION ORDER

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
determined to grant a petition filed by Navico, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Navico Holding AS,
of Egersund, Norway (collectively, “Navico”), requesting the that Commission modify the
limited exclusion order (“LEO”) issued on December 1, 2015. The Commission has issued a
modified LEO.


This is clearly a notice that the USITC has agreed with and adopted the measures requested by NAVICO. NAVICO filed a petition requesting certain actions in May 2016. Subsequently GARMIN filed a petition in opposition in June 2016. In August 2016 the ITC announces it is adopting the measures requested by NAVICO. This cannot be interpreted as a victory by GARMIN.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:55 am

Garmin has appealed this decision to the U.S. Appeals Court, bringing suit against NAVICO and the USITC.

On September 6, 2016, the USITC published a public opinion in the dispute before the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT on Garmin's suit against the USITC and Navico. In that filing the USITC said, in part:

Appellee International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) hereby
opposes Garmin’s motion. The facts of this case are set out in detail in the
Commission’s opposition to the stay motion, which is being filed concurrently
herewith. As set forth in that opposition, Garmin treated the Commission’s
exclusion order like a nuisance: instead of importing certain infringing sonar
systems, it imported each system by separating the components into two plastic
bags (to circumvent the exclusion order), put those two bags in the same box in the
United States, and sold the infringing boxed systems after importation. When the
Commission put an end to Garmin’s charade and clarified that its exclusion order
covered Garmin’s importation of the components separately for their combined
sale after importation, Garmin brought this appeal.


Cf.: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., GARMIN USA, INC.,
GARMIN CORPORATION
Appellants,
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee
and
NAVICO INC., NAVICO HOLDING AS
Intervenors.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
IN INVESTIGATION NO. 337-TA-921.
OPPOSITION OF APPELLEE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
TO APPELLANT GARMIN’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO EXPEDITE
SUBMISSION OF THE CERTIFIED LIST, THE MERITS
BRIEFING, AND THE ORAL ARGUMENT

NAVICO had earlier complained to the USITC about the practice of Garmin circumventing USITC order. They purchased Garmin products in retail packages that clearly showed the offending SONAR was kitted with a transducer in the same box.

The box for the echoMAP CHIRP 73dv product purchased by Navico demonstrates that
Garmin intended to kit the individually imported components after importation. The following
image is a photograph of the outside of the box, which repeatedly indicates that a DownVü
transducer is included in the box. [Emphasis in original]


The fact that each box states that the transducer is included within the box confirms
that the transducer, although imported separately from the head unit, is a component of the
complete product (and not a “standalone” transducer).

Thus, when Garmin imported the transducer for each product shown above, Garmin knew
that the transducer was a component of an infringing product. Per the labeling on the boxes,
each transducer was slated to be placed into a box and sold after importation as a component of a
fully kitted unit. This combination requires no actual assembly; Garmin simply places the
transducer in the box with the head unit and then sells the fully kitted product. No connections
are required or made.


Cf.: THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
In the Matter of
CERTAIN MARINE SONAR IMAGING
DEVICES, INCLUDING DOWNSCAN
AND SIDESCAN DEVICES, PRODUCTS
CONTAINING THE SAME, AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-921
COMPLAINANTS NAVICO INC. AND NAVICO HOLDING AS’S PETITION
FOR MODIFICATION OF THE LIMITED EXCLUSION ORDER

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:31 am

The SONAR WARS have moved out of court and on to YOUTUBE.

Lowrance discusses how their patents are preventing Garmin from delivering optimum performance in this elaborately produced seven minute presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klwhx0SndJQ

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:12 am

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling that set aside all prior judgements in favor of NAVICO and found GARMIN had not infringed on NAVICO patents, two of which were found to be invalid. Wow--complete reversal and total victory for GARMIN. Read the details at

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/defa ... 2017.1.PDF

GARMIN issued a press release on June 13, 2017, the day the opinion was published, which contained these statements:

OLATHE, Kan.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Garmin International Inc., a unit of Garmin Ltd. (NASDAQ: GRMN), announced today that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) reversed a December 2015 finding by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that Garmin had infringed Navico patents related to downscan sonar. Specifically, the Federal Circuit ruled that two of Navico’s patents were invalid and that Garmin’s DownVü sonar does not infringe a third Navico patent.

The Federal Circuit’s decision not only reverses the ITC’s original orders, but supersedes all related rulings by U.S. Customs and the ITC, including an initial determination that Garmin should be subject to a $37 million fine for selling DownVü products. Garmin is now free to import and sell any and all sonar products.

“The Federal Circuit’s sweeping decision, finding that Navico’s downscan technology was an obvious modification of old sonar systems, puts an end to Navico’s unfounded and vicious patent war against Garmin,” said Andrew Etkind, Garmin’s vice president and general counsel. “Not only does the Federal Circuit’s decision eliminate the ongoing disputes at the ITC, it renders Navico’s other lawsuits in Oklahoma and Texas without merit.”

“This ruling confirms our strong belief that Navico’s patent claims were not supported by the facts,” said Cliff Pemble, Garmin’s chief executive officer. “Despite Navico’s flood of lawsuits, and harassment of Garmin’s dealers, distributors, and customers, the industry stood by us during this difficult and unnecessary fight and for that, we are extremely grateful. We look forward to a great 2017 filled with exciting new Garmin products.”

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:12 pm

The most recent finding was somewhat astonishing to me in that it revealed what seemed to be a profound lack of awareness by prior examiners of the disclosed inventions that were prior art, in particular the Tucker patent. The new decision relied on a proper interpretation of the Tucker patent as describing a "sonar processor." The prior tribunal (The ITC administrative law judge) seemed to be woefully unaware of how to read a schematic diagram. This is revealed in the following excerpt from the Court of Appeals opinion (with my own emphasis added):

2. Sonar Signal Processor

The Commission found that Garmin failed to show
that the Tucker prior art reference discloses the “sonar
signal processor” limitation of independent claims 1 and
23 of the ’840 patent and claims 32 and 44 of the ’550
patent.3 The Commission found that “[a]lthough Tucker
provides circuit diagrams of the receiver and detailed
specifications of the receiver and the recorder, Tucker
does not expressly recite a processor or the processor’s
functions of receiving signals representative of sonar
returns and processing the signals to produce sonar image
data.” The Commission also stated that Garmin did not
identify the specific disclosures in Tucker that support its
position.

As part of an invalidity claim chart, Garmin argued to
the Commission that Tucker described a “sonar signal
processor:”

Tucker describes “the receiver” for receiving the
bounce-back sonar echo, id. at 106, and “the recorder”
for processing the data received and displaying
the information on a chart or a cathode-ray
tube, id. at 108.

J.A. 12413. Garmin reiterates this argument on appeal.

Despite Garmin’s reference to details from Tucker,
the Commission argues on appeal that Tucker does not
disclose receiving input from the transducer.
The Commission
argues that because the circuit diagram of the
receiver has an input labeled “input from transmitter”
rather than “input from transducer,” it is not clear that
the received signals are sonar signals from the transducer.
We disagree.

Figure 8 of Tucker shows in great detail how the receiver
is connected to the transducer: through resistor
R27 and transformer TR3. This figure is shown on page
106 of Tucker, one of the two pages cited by Garmin.
Further, it defies logic to conclude that the receiver is
getting its information from any source other than echoes
received through the transducer. Tucker does not disclose
any other sonar sensor, and the Commission provides no
evidence of any alternative explanation. How else could a
sonar system work?


...Notably, the Commission does not argue that “sonar
signal processor” is a narrow term that differs from the
sonar signal processors in Tucker and Betts in some
specific way. Rather, the Commission simply argues that
Tucker and Betts do not process sonar signals from a
transducer at all. That position is not supported by
substantial evidence.


...The Commission found that the “sonar signal processor”
was the single element that distinguished these
claims from Tucker. The only other distinction asserted
by Navico was that Tucker failed to disclose a “single
linear downscan transducer element,” but the Commission
found that it did. J.A. 37, 41. The Commission also
found a motivation to combine the teachings of Tucker
and Betts. J.A. 43. Since every element of the asserted
claims is present in the combination of Tucker and Betts,
and because there was a motivation to combine these
elements, these claims are rendered obvious.
Here, as in
KSR, the invention is no more than the predictable use of
the prior art elements according to their established
functions.

Accordingly, we reverse the Commission’s finding that
claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16–19, 23, 32, 39–41, 63, and 70–72 of
the ’840 patent and claims 32 and 44 of the ’550 patent
are valid over Tucker and Betts.


What makes this latest ruling even more astonishing is the fact that the cited prior art of Tucker was disclosed in 1960, almost 60-years ago.

jimh
Posts: 11670
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: More SONAR WARS in Court

Postby jimh » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:02 am

About 18 months have elapsed since the last news about the GARMIN-NAVICO legal dispute over SONAR technology and patents, but this week comes an interesting announcement. On February 7, 2018, NAVICO and GARMIN sent out a JOINT press release, announcing that the three-year-long legal dispute has ended, and that NAVICO and GARMIN have agreed to a "broad cross licensing of patents and other intellectual property."

There are no details other than the quoted material above.