Plaintiff
5 cases as plaintiff.
Company overview. SiRF Technology, Inc. was an American fabless semiconductor company founded in 1995 and headquartered in San Jose, California. Its publicly traded parent was SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: SIRF). The company was acquired by UK-based CSR plc in a share deal announced February 2009 and valued at roughly $136 million; CSR itself was later acquired by Qualcomm in 2015. SiRF therefore no longer operates as an independent entity. Public sources describe it as a leading pure-play GPS chip supplier but do not give a reliable standalone employee or revenue figure for the periods in the case data.
Products / operations. SiRF pioneered commercial GPS for consumer applications, designing GPS chipsets, associated firmware/software and location platforms. Its flagship product architecture was SiRFstarIII, later joined by the SiRFstarIII-LT and GSD3t (90 nm RFCMOS) lines, the SiRFInstantFix software, the GSC3/LP family, and the multimode assisted-GPS GSCi-5000 chip. Chips paired ARM controllers with low-noise radio receivers for weak-signal GPS acquisition and supported SBAS. End markets included portable navigation devices, automotive telematics, mobile handsets, and other consumer electronics. Wafer fabrication, test, assembly and packaging were outsourced (TSMC, ASE). It was an operating company, not a patent assertion entity.
Litigation posture. The tracked docket shows an active two-way litigant — five cases as plaintiff, one as defendant — all clustering in 2006–2008 and all against the same adversary family, Global Locate, Inc. and its acquirer Broadcom. This is competitor-versus-competitor GPS patent litigation, not NPE activity. Venues include the Central District of California (Santa Ana Division), the ITC, and the Federal Circuit.
Notable cases. In December 2006 SiRF sued Global Locate in the Central District of California; in February 2007 it filed ITC complaint 337-TA-596 over GPS chips and software, asserting U.S. patents including 6,304,216, 7,043,363, 7,091,904 and 7,132,980. Global Locate counter-filed ITC 337-TA-602, which Broadcom joined after acquiring Global Locate in July 2007; that investigation ended in a January 2009 finding of violation by SiRF and issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders. SiRF appealed to the Federal Circuit, and the related district court suits were stayed pending the ITC rulings.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when SiRF Technology, Inc. files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
Section 337 investigation initiated by SiRF Technology against Global Locate, Inc., later adding Broadcom, Inc., asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 6,304,216; 7,043,363; 7,091,904; and 7,132,980. The ALJ found no violation of Section 337, including non-infringement and no domestic industry for the '216 patent, and the Commission declined review on August 14, 2008.
SiRF Technology, Inc. sued Global Locate, Inc. and SBCG, Inc. in the Central District of California. Global Locate counterclaimed and asserted U.S. Patents 6,542,820, 6,560,534, 6,704,651, and 6,606,346, including the '534 patent. The case was stayed on February 26, 2009, pending ITC determinations, and dismissed without prejudice by stipulation on January 18, 2011.
Parallel district court action by SiRF against Global Locate and SBCG; stayed on 2007-10-03 pending ITC investigations 337-TA-596 and 337-TA-602. Global Locate's counterclaims included the '801 patent; all claims and counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice on 2011-01-18.
SiRF appealed the ITC's final determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-602. The Federal Circuit affirmed in full, upholding Global Locate's standing to assert the '346 patent, SiRF's direct infringement, and patent eligibility of the asserted method claims; Broadcom participated as intervenor.
Federal Circuit appeal by SiRF and other respondents from the ITC's final determination in 337-TA-602, with Broadcom as intervenor. The court affirmed in all respects, upholding standing, infringement, and patent-eligibility of method claims of the '801 and '187 patents; '801 was held valid, enforceable, and infringed.