I'll research this company before writing the profile.
Let me dig into the specific litigation and the corporate structure.
One more check on the entity's current corporate status and the parent's listing.
Mio Technology Ltd., USA — Company Profile
Company overview. Mio Technology Ltd., USA (also reported as Mio Technology USA Ltd.) was the Fremont, California–based U.S. arm of Mio Technology Corporation (宇達電通), a Taiwanese electronics maker founded in May 2002, headquartered in Taipei / New Taipei's Zhonghe District, with European operations based in Belgium. It is not independent: Mio is a brand of the MiTAC group, formerly a subsidiary of MiTAC International Corp. (now MiTAC Holdings Corporation, TWSE: 3706). After MiTAC International spun off its mobile-communication product group in September 2017, the Mio brand (alongside Magellan and Navman) moved under MiTAC Digital Technology Corporation (MDT, 神達數位), which began operating in January 2018 and listed on Taiwan's emerging-stock market (ticker 7821) on 31 March 2025. Company materials cite roughly 1,200–2,000 employees worldwide and sales in 47–56 countries; MDT reported consolidated 2024 revenue of NT$6.98bn (2023: NT$4.96bn). No current standalone headcount or revenue for the U.S. entity is verifiable.
Products / services. An operating company. Mio designs and markets in-car and outdoor electronics: portable GPS navigation devices; dashcams (MiVue); cycling navigation (Mio Cyclo); connected dashcams and video-telematics/fleet-management systems (MioEYE); and industrial professional tablets (MioCARE / MioWORK), plus related apps, APIs, and cloud services. It historically sold PDAs, GPS PDA phones, and smartphones (via E-TEN).
Litigation posture. A defendant, not an asserter. Mio was a respondent in the ITC Section 337 investigation Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-602 — an operating-company dispute brought by Global Locate (later Broadcom) over assisted-GPS chip technology, not an NPE campaign. Its single "plaintiff" entry is the consolidated appeal SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. No. 2009-1262), where Mio was an appellant challenging the ITC's remedial orders rather than asserting patents.
Notable cases. In 337-TA-602 (instituted May 2007), the ALJ found violations of all six Global Locate A-GPS patents ('801, '346, '000, '651, '187, '080); the Commission affirmed on 15 January 2009, issuing a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders against SiRF, Pharos, and Mio. The Federal Circuit affirmed in full on 12 April 2010 (601 F.3d 1319), addressing patent standing, direct-versus-joint infringement, and §101 patentability. Broadcom later sought modification/enforcement of the orders (2010).