Litigation

Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Garmin Ltd. et al.

settled

337-TA-900

Filed
2013-09-23
Terminated
2014-09-22

Patents at issue (1)

7161561

Summary

ITC investigation concerning certain navigation products, including GPS devices, navigation and display systems, radar systems, navigational aids, mapping systems, and related software. Furuno named Garmin, Navico, and Raymarine respondents and asserted the '561 patent (claims 1–10, 12, 14), among other patents. The investigation was terminated in its entirety on September 22, 2014, based on settlements with each respondent.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this ITC investigation to verify the details before drafting the overview.

Good baseline. Now let me verify the ALJ, target date, parallel district court case, and any IPR activity.

Now let me verify the ALJ, target date, IPR activity, and the Navico–Raymarine corporate relationship.

Case overview — Furuno Electric Co. v. Garmin Ltd., Inv. No. 337-TA-900 (USITC)

The parties: an operating-company fight, not an NPE assertion. The complainants were Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. of Nishinomiya City, Hyogo, Japan and its U.S. subsidiary Furuno U.S.A.,

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this systematically. Note at the outset that the case number 337-TA-900 is an ITC Section 337 investigation number, not a district court docket — so the procedural checklist you've given (Markman, JMOL, verdict) maps onto ITC procedure differently. Let me verify the specifics and look for any parallel district court/PTAB proceedings.

Good — I've confirmed the ITC framework. Now let me pull the specific termination notices, the parallel district court case in Oregon, and any PTAB proceedings.

Key ITC milestones are confirmed. Now let me check the parallel Oregon district court case, PTAB activity, and the procedural schedule details (ALJ identity, target date, claim construction).

Threshold framing (important)

337-TA-900 is a Section 337 investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission, not a district court case. Several items on your checklist therefore have no direct analogue, and I want to be explicit rather than map them onto facts that don't exist:

District-court milestone ITC equivalent here What actually happened
Complaint / answer / counterclaims Complaint → Notice of Investigation → Respondents' responses Complaint 2013‑09‑23; instituted 2013‑11‑08; no counterclaims — 19 C.F.R. § 210.13 practice bars them (respondents' counterclaims must be brought in district court)
Motion to dismiss/transfer/stay Motions to terminate, amend complaint, or stay Terminations by settlement only; no stay motion identified
Markman ALJ claim construction order, typically after a technology tutorial None found in the public record — the investigation died ~10 months in, before any claim construction order or evidentiary hearing
Summary judgment Summary determination (19 C.F.R. § 210.18) None sought/found
Trial + verdict Evidentiary hearing → Initial Determination → Commission review Never reached. No ID on the merits, no violation finding, no exclusion order
JMOL/new trial/fees Petitions for Commission review; no JMOL mechanism; § 285 fees not available at ITC Petitions for review were never filed — the Commission issued "determination not to review" notices in every instance
Appeal Federal Circuit (28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)) None. Settlement-based terminations are not appealed

So the honest answer to "key legal developments" is: there were no merits rulings at all. This case is a study in claim and party attrition followed by three sequential settlements. That is itself the legally significant fact, and I've organized the chronology around it.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

  • 2013‑09‑23 — Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. and Furuno U.S.A., Inc. file the ITC complaint (DN 2983) against nine entities: Garmin Ltd., Garmin International, Garmin North America, Garmin USA; Navico Holding AS, Navico UK Ltd., Navico Inc.; Raymarine, Inc., Raymarine UK Ltd. Asserted: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,084,565 (claims 1‑5, 7‑20), 6,424,292 (claims 1‑6), 7,161,561 (claims 1‑10, 12, 14), and 7,768,447 (claims 1‑25). Relief sought: limited exclusion order, cease-and-desist orders, and a bond during Presidential review.
  • 2013‑09‑23 — Same day, Furuno files a parallel district court action in the District of Oregon, Portland Division: Furuno Electric Co. v. Garmin Ltd., No. 3:13‑cv‑01683‑MO (Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman), asserting the same four patents against Garmin only. (docket index)
  • 2013‑11‑08 — Commission votes to institute; 2013‑11‑15 — Notice of Investigation published, 78 Fed. Reg. 68861‑62. OUII is a party. (FR text; USITC news release 13‑112)
  • Presiding ALJ: Sandra (Dee) Lord. Caveat: the Federal Register notices refer only to "the presiding ALJ"; the assignment to Judge Lord comes from Finnegan's matter listing for 337‑TA‑900, and I could not pull the EDIS docket to confirm the assignment order. (Finnegan listing)
  • Respondents' defenses: Garmin's public disclosures confirm it intended to contest validity claim-by-claim ("Garmin believes that each asserted claim … is invalid") alongside non-infringement. (Garmin Q3 2013 10‑Q, p. 9)

Related prior art/context: Furuno had asserted the '565 and '561 patents in an earlier ITC investigation (337‑TA‑810), terminated in March 2012 on settlement, and had previously litigated them against Honeywell in D. Or. This was Furuno's second ITC run with essentially the same display-system family.

2. Pre-trial motion practice of substance — all of it claim/party narrowing

This is where the real legal work happened. Furuno never litigated to a merits ruling; it progressively shrank the case while settling out respondents one at a time.

Date Event Citation
2014‑01‑31 Furuno moves (unopposed) to partially terminate as to '565 claims 1‑3, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 — described as "canceled claims" — and for leave to amend the complaint/NOI to drop them and the accused automotive and avionic products ID Order No. 12 (2014‑03‑10)
2014‑04‑09 Commission determines not to review Order No. 12 79 Fed. Reg. 20907 (Apr. 14, 2014) (text)
2014‑04‑03 / corrected 2014‑04‑16 Furuno moves (unopposed) to partially terminate based on withdrawal of allegations: '565 claims 13, 15, 18, 20; '292 claims 2, 5, 6; '561 claims 2, 4, 6‑10, 14; '447 claims 2, 4, 5, 8‑25 ID Order No. 16 (2014‑04‑16)
2014‑05‑12 Commission determines not to review Order No. 16 USITC notice

Why the January 2014 motion matters: the '565 claims were removed as already canceled — i.e., Furuno was litigating around an adverse patentability outcome obtained outside the ITC (consistent with an ex

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll start by searching for press coverage of this investigation across multiple angles.

Press coverage of Furuno v. Garmin, Inv. No. 337-TA-900

There is very little case-specific press coverage, and I want to say that plainly up front rather than pad this section. I searched the caption, the party names in combination, the patent numbers, the investigation number, and the settlement events, and I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or JD Supra article on this investigation. The trade-press and legal-trade hits that do exist are of three kinds: a law-firm Section 337 practice note announcing the complaint, a Taiwanese government science-and-technology information desk analysis, and the Commission's own press release. Notably, no outlet reported the terms of any of the three settlements — which is unsurprising, because the settlement agreements were filed with the Commission in confidential and redacted public versions under 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(b)(1), as the termination notices themselves recite. As a consequence, there are no reported damages figures, royalty rates, or settlement payments to summarize; Section 337 also affords exclusion and cease-and-desist relief rather than money damages, so no damages award was ever at issue.

The most substantive contemporaneous legal-trade account is Lexology, which published a September 25, 2013 practice note by Eric Schweibenz and Alex Englehart (an Oblon Section 337 blog post syndicated on the platform). It reported the filing two days earlier against all nine respondents, identified the four asserted patents — the '565, '292, '561, and '447 patents — and, usefully for the '561 patent specifically, described it as "a digital display system with multiple displays that allow users to selectively present one or more images from different measuring devices on each display." It also reported Furuno's domestic-industry theory (the NavNet 3D series, plus facilities in Washington and Maryland), the requested remedy (permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease-and-desist orders), and — most valuable for context — that the '565 and '561 patents had already been litigated in Inv. No. 337-TA-810, terminated in March 2012 on a settlement agreement, and earlier against Honeywell in the District of Oregon. That framing, that this was Furuno's second ITC run on substantially the same display-system family, is the significance point the coverage emphasizes.

The most detailed factual account is a Chinese-language analysis published January 17, 2014 by the Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center's 科技產業資訊室 (iKnow) unit, iKnow STPI. It goes further than any other source, itemizing the accused products patent-by-patent — Garmin's nüvi/zūmo/dēzl/Pilot and aera lines, GPSMAP 400 through 8000 series, echoMAP, GMR/GMM; Navico's Lowrance HDS, B&G Zeus, Northstar, and Simrad NSO/NSE/NSS families; and Raymarine's a/c/e/gS series — and reproducing a table of the '561 and '447 patents with their titles ("Display system"; "Radar apparatus and the like"), filing and issue dates, and inventors. It is, however, the source of the errors already flagged in the earlier sections of this analysis, and the flagging bears repeating with specifics: it misstates the filing date as December 20, 2013 (the complaint was filed September 23, 2013), and it asserts that "Raymarine為英國船用導航設備大廠，2010年被Garmin以1,250萬英鎊收購，成為Garmin旗下公司之ㄧ" — that Garmin acquired Raymarine for £12.5 million in 2010. That is wrong; Raymarine's 2010 acquirer was FLIR Systems, and Raymarine's separate counsel block in the ITC filings is consistent with an independent, non-Garmin respondent. The piece also recites complaint allegations as though they were established facts, and its claim-mapping for the '447 patent is internally inconsistent between its bullet list and its table. Treat it as a useful inventory of accused products, not as a reliable statement of case facts.

What the press record shows beyond the pleadings is essentially corporate-disclosure material rather than journalism. USITC issued News Release 13-112 on November 8, 2013 announcing institution, with the express caveat that "[b]y instituting this investigation (337-TA-900), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case." On the defense side, Garmin's own SEC filings are the only party statements I located: its Q3 2013 Form 10-Q disclosed the ITC complaint and the parallel Oregon action and stated that "Garmin believes that each asserted claim of the '565 patent, the '292 patent, the '561 patent, and the '447 patent is invalid and/or not infringed," while warning of a potential material adverse effect — a claim-by-claim validity defense, not a merits ruling. A subsequent Garmin 10-Q disclosed that "[o]n April 25, 2014, the parties finalized a settlement agreement resolving this matter," a date that appears in the district-court portion of the disclosure and precedes the June 2, 2014 joint motion to terminate the ITC case as to Garmin; I flag the sequencing rather than reconcile it, since I could not pull the underlying filing text in full. No executive interviews, analyst notes, or industry-reaction commentary on this investigation surfaced in any search — a contrast with the same competitor set's later, heavily covered sonar fight in Inv. No. 337-TA-921, where Garmin's general counsel and CEO issued pointed public statements after the Federal Circuit reversed the Commission in 2017.

Finally, a note on the news-index items supplied with this task: those eight pieces — the satellite-navigation market forecast, the autonomous-boats and fish-finder reports, and the solid-state radar reports — are commercial market-research press releases, not litigation coverage. My searches returned no indication that any of them discusses Inv. No. 337-TA-900, Furuno's assertion of the '561 patent, or these settlements, and I am therefore not citing them as case coverage. The one marine-industry blog item that does mention Furuno, Navico, and Raymarine together in a patent context is Panbo, and it concerns the earlier Honeywell patent campaign against the same manufacturers — not this investigation — so it should not be cited here.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the counsel of record for Furuno in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-900.

Let me dig into the docket filings and identify Furuno's counsel specifically.

Quinn Emanuel filed the complaint. Let me pin down the specific attorneys of record and confirm with docket filings.

Plaintiff-Side Counsel of Record — Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. & Furuno U.S.A., Inc.

Inv. No. 337-TA-900 (ITC) — "Certain Navigation Products…"

Bottom line

Furuno was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, which filed the September 23, 2013 complaint on Furuno's behalf and litigated the investigation through the three settlements (Navico, April 2014; Garmin, June 2014; Raymarine, August/September 2014). One attorney's participation is directly verifiable from his firm biography; the remainder of the trial team is only partially documented in public, non-EDIS sources, and I flag the gaps below rather than populate the roster by inference.

Verified counsel

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Brett N. Watkins Of counsel; member of the Furuno trial team (specific "lead counsel" designation not confirmed in a public docket entry) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP — Houston, TX Firm bio expressly credits him with "[r]epresent[ing] complainant Furuno in a patent-based International Trade Commission investigation against Garmin, Navico, and Raymarine," with "favorable settlements following discovery." Patent/trade-secret litigator; joined QE in 2012 from a Washington, D.C. IP boutique.

Sources: Quinn Emanuel attorney bio for Brett N. Watkins (quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/watkins-brett-n); Quinn Emanuel ITC representative-matters document listing Certain Navigation Products…, Inv. No. 337-TA-900 (2014): "We represented Furuno as complainant against Garmin, Navico and Raymarine for patent infringement. We settled on very favorable terms against all three respondents prior to the hearing" (quinnkorea.com/media/ufefd3aw/rr-itc-3-21.pdf); CapTrade blog, "Three New 337 Complaints on the Radar" (Sept. 2013): complaint "filed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP on behalf of Furuno Electric Co Ltd. and Furuno USA Inc."

What the record does and does not show

  1. Firm-level representation is solid. Two independent, firm-authored sources plus contemporaneous commentary identify Quinn Emanuel as Furuno's counsel, and the firm's own ITC experience summary describes the matter and its outcome. The Commission's termination notices confirm the procedural arc (78 Fed. Reg. 68861 (Nov. 15, 2013) institution; 79 Fed. Reg. 57976 (Sept. 26, 2014) termination in its entirety), consistent with QE's description of three pre-hearing settlements.
  2. Individual counsel of record is only partly recovered. In ITC practice the complainant's full attorney list appears in the complaint's signature block and in the § 210.12(a) notice-of-appearance-type filings. I was able to confirm one named attorney (Watkins) from a firm-published source; I could not retrieve the complaint's signature block or the EDIS docket entries in this research pass, so I am not naming additional Quinn Emanuel lawyers who may well have appeared. This is a documentation gap, not evidence they were absent. No sealing issue is implicated — the complaint and the termination motions were public; I simply did not obtain the EDIS images.
  3. Do not conflate two "counsel" roles that surface in searches. A Finnegan experience page for Inv. No. 337-TA-900 (before ALJ Lord) describes work as "senior litigation counsel for the International Trade Commission," noted as "matter handled prior to joining Finnegan." That is a former ITC/OUII staff attorney who worked the investigation for the Commission — not Furuno's counsel. OUII (the Commission Investigative Attorney) was a party, as the Federal Register notices reflect, and is adverse in role to no one but is also not plaintiff's counsel.
  4. In-house counsel unverified. Furuno U.S.A., Inc. (Camas, WA) was a named complainant and would have had in-house supervision, but I found no public filing identifying a Furuno legal-department attorney of record. I am not supplying a name.
  5. No local-counsel structure to report. Unlike district court practice, ITC investigations do not require a separate local counsel admission, and I found no evidence of a second firm appearing for Furuno. Quinn Emanuel's Washington, D.C. office handled the ITC-facing work per the firm's own ITC practice description, with Houston and other offices contributing.

Respondent-side counsel (for cross-reference — confirms the docket's public signature blocks)

The docket does publicly identify opposing counsel, which corroborates that the filings were unsealed and searchable: Greenberg Traurig LLP (P.J. McCarthy, Scott Bornstein, Richard C. Pettus, Vimal M. Kapadia — New York; Herbert H. Finn — Chicago; Tara Williams — Houston) for Garmin; Bickel & Brewer (William A. Brewer III, Michael J. Collins, Farooq A. Tayab, Stephanie L. Gase — Dallas) and Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck PC (E. Anthony Figg, Robert P. Parker, Jenny Colgate, Soumya P. Panda — Washington, D.C.) for Navico; with Raymarine's counsel listed in the same joint submission. Source: docket submission excerpt hosted at docketalarm.com (Inv. 337-900, doc. 529711).

Recommended next step for a fully sourced roster

Pull the complaint's signature page and any notice of appearance from EDIS (edis.usitc.gov) under Inv. 337-TA-900, and the joint motions to terminate as to Navico (Mar. 28, 2014), Garmin (June 2014), and Raymarine (Aug. 13, 2014) — each will carry the then-current Furuno signature block. That would let you confirm or add names beyond Watkins with citation to specific EDIS document numbers, which I have deliberately not guessed at here.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research respondent-side counsel for Garmin, Navico, and Raymarine. The prior section already surfaced partial names from a docket submission excerpt; I need to verify and expand, and pin down Raymarine's counsel specifically.

The docket submission (doc. 529711) is the key primary source. Let me pull it directly and look for Raymarine's separate counsel block.

Let me pull the docket-alarm document index for 337-900 and target the Raymarine signature block specifically.

Defense Counsel of Record — Respondents Garmin, Navico, and Raymarine

Certain Navigation Products…, Inv. No. 337-TA-900 (USITC) (ALJ Sandra (Dee) Lord)

Bottom line

Respondent-side representation was three separate defense groups, each with its own signature block, consistent with the three-track settlement structure described in the earlier sections of this analysis. Two of the three groups are fully recoverable from a public ITC filing; the third (Raymarine) is only partially recoverable, and I am not filling in the names.

The controlling primary source is a public (non-sealed) ITC filing in the investigation — Respondents' Motion for Leave to File Corrected Tentative Witness List (Doc. 529711, filed March 2014, referencing Order No. 7's procedural schedule). It carries all three respondents' signature blocks. This is the same document excerpted in the plaintiff-side section, so it is corroborated within this analysis. (doc. 529711)

Terminology caveat first: ITC practice has no "appearance" or "lead counsel" designation in the district-court sense. Respondents file a single consolidated signature block per respondent group under 19 C.F.R. § 210.15, with the filer indicated by "/s/". So the "role" column below reflects (i) signatory of record, (ii) named on the signature block, and (iii) office/firm affiliation — not a formalized lead/second-chair hierarchy. Any finer-grained role assignment would be inference, not record.

1. Garmin respondents — Garmin Ltd.; Garmin International, Inc.; Garmin North America, Inc.; Garmin USA, Inc.

Firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP (multi-office: New York; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Houston)

Attorney Role on record Firm office Note
P.J. McCarthy Signatory of record (/s/ P.J. McCarthy); listed in both the New York and D.C. blocks, which is the strongest indicator of first-chair/coordinating responsibility for the Garmin group Greenberg Traurig — New York (200 Park Ave.) and Washington, D.C. (2101 L St. NW) Longtime GT ITC practitioner; the D.C. listing reflects the ITC-facing side of the representation. Firm-level characterization; not docket-verified beyond the signature block.
Scott Bornstein Named counsel Greenberg Traurig — New York (200 Park Ave.) Patent/IP litigator in GT's New York litigation group.
Richard C. Pettus Named counsel Greenberg Traurig — New York (200 Park Ave.) Patent litigator, electrical/mechanical arts.
Vimal M. Kapadia Named counsel Greenberg Traurig — New York (200 Park Ave.) Patent litigator.
Herbert H. Finn Named counsel Greenberg Traurig — Chicago (77 W. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3100) Registered patent attorney; patent prosecution and litigation background.
Tara Williams Named counsel Greenberg Traurig — Houston (1000 Louisiana St., Ste. 1700) Litigation; the Houston listing is notable because it is not a Garmin or D.C. nexus and suggests document/discovery support.
Rosa S. Jeong Named counsel Greenberg Traurig — Washington, D.C. (2101 L St. NW) ITC-side support.
Kakoli Caprihan Named counsel Greenberg Traurig — Washington, D.C. ITC-side support.
Ashkon Cyrus Named counsel Greenberg Traurig — Washington, D.C. ITC-side support.

Context: Garmin is a repeat 337 respondent in the marine-electronics space and a repeat Greenberg Traurig client. Note the later mirror-image case — Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-938, in which Navico was the complainant and Garmin the respondent, producing a December 1, 2015 violation finding and a limited exclusion order against Garmin. (81 Fed. Reg. 71532) That is the same competitor set, roles reversed, roughly eighteen months later — useful if you are tracing whether the 337-TA-900 settlements held.

2. Navico respondents — Navico Holding AS; Navico UK Limited; Navico Inc.

Firms: Bickel & Brewer (Dallas, with a New York office) + Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, PC (Washington, D.C.)

Attorney Role on record Firm office Note
William A. Brewer III Signatory of record (/s/ William A. Brewer, III) Bickel & Brewer — Dallas (Suite 4800, 1717 Main St.) Founding name partner; high-stakes commercial/business litigation practice. The Bickel & Brewer engagement is the trial-counsel side of the pairing.
Michael J. Collins Named counsel Bickel & Brewer — Dallas Commercial litigation.
Farooq A. Tayab Named counsel Bickel & Brewer — Dallas Litigation.
Stephanie L. Gase Named counsel Bickel & Brewer — Dallas Litigation.
Kaleb McNeely Named counsel Listed at 767 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y. — appearing in the Bickel & Brewer block (the firm name is not repeated for the New York address in the signature page; treat the firm attribution as inferred from block structure) Litigation.
Joshua T. Ebersole Named counsel 767 Fifth Ave., New York — same Bickel & Brewer block Litigation.
E. Anthony Figg Named counsel; patent-law lead on the Rothwell Figg side Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck — Washington, D.C. (607 14th St. NW, Ste. 800) Founding partner of the firm; registered patent attorney with a deep ITC and Hatch-Waxman practice. Firm-level characterization.
Robert P. Parker Named counsel Rothwell Figg — Washington, D.C. Registered patent attorney; electrical/computer arts.
Jenny Colgate Named counsel Rothwell Figg — Washington, D.C. Patent litigation.
Soumya P. Panda Named counsel Rothwell Figg — Washington, D.C. Patent litigation.

Structural read: this is a deliberate two-firm split — a Dallas commercial-litigation shop as trial counsel paired with a D.C. patent boutique for the § 337/IP-specific work. That is a common ITC configuration where the client wants relationship trial counsel but needs a patent-registered D.C. anchor.

3. Raymarine respondents — Raymarine, Inc.; Raymarine UK Ltd.

This is the gap, and I am flagging it rather than guessing.

The March 2014 joint filing contains a separate, third signature block captioned "Counsel for Respondents Raymarine UK, Ltd. and Raymarine, Inc." — so Raymarine indisputably had its own, distinct counsel, did not join the Greenberg Traurig or Bickel & Brewer blocks, and was actively participating in discovery at least through the March 2014 tentative witness list. (doc. 529711)

I could not extract the names beneath that heading from the available text of the document. The search extract truncates precisely at that caption. I therefore am not naming any Raymarine attorney — I have no record-verified name, and populating that slot by inference from other Raymarine/FLIR ITC matters would be fabrication.

Two things I can say with grounding:

  • It was a genuinely separate representation, not shared. If Raymarine had been jointly represented with Garmin, there would be no third block — the filing structure affirmatively rules that out. This also independently corroborates the point already made in the press section: the iKnow STPI article's claim that Garmin had acquired Raymarine is inconsistent with the docket.
  • Raymarine's parent at the time was FLIR Systems, which had acquired Raymarine in 2010 — not Garmin. I flag this as background to be re-verified before publication; the iKnow ownership claim was already flagged as uncorroborated in the press section.

What the record does and does not show

  1. Nothing here is sealed. The witness-list motion, the signature blocks, and the three joint motions to terminate are public ITC filings. The sealing in this investigation attached to the settlement agreements filed under 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(b)(1) — as the Commission's own termination notices confirm — not to counsel appearances. (79 Fed. Reg. 57976; Navico termination notice) So the Raymarine gap is a document-retrieval gap, not a sealing issue.

  2. The signature block is a March 2014 snapshot, not a full-life roster. Because the investigation terminated in September 2014, this block is close to final. But firms do add and drop personnel, and the block reflects the trial team at the witness-list stage.

  3. No in-house counsel identified. Garmin (Olathe, KS), Navico (Tulsa, OK), and Raymarine (Nashua, NH) all would have had in-house supervision, and Garmin's SEC disclosures show active in-house/litigation-committee oversight of this matter. No public filing I located names an in-house attorney of record, and I am not supplying names.

  4. One entity to exclude from any respondent-counsel list. The Finnegan experience page for 337-TA-900 (before Judge Lord) describes "senior litigation counsel for the International Trade Commission" with the notation "matter handled prior to joining Finnegan." That is former ITC/OUII staff counsel who worked the investigation for the Commission, not a respondent's lawyer. This was flagged in the plaintiff-side section and bears repeating here because a naive search of "337-TA-900 counsel" surfaces it alongside respondents' counsel. (Finnegan)

  5. Parallel D. Or. case counsel not researched. The parallel action, Furuno Electric Co. v. Garmin Ltd., No. 3:13-cv-01683-MO (D. Or.), had only Garmin as defendant and would have its own PACER docket and counsel list, which may differ from the ITC team (particularly the local-counsel requirement, which the ITC does not impose). I did not verify it in this research pass and am not asserting any overlap.

Recommended next step for a complete roster

Go to EDIS (edis.usitc.gov) under Inv. 337-TA-900 and pull, in this order:

  1. Doc. 529711, page 1 (or the last page) — the full signature page for the corrected tentative witness list; reading the PDF rather than the search extract should surface the Raymarine names immediately below the caption.
  2. The August 13, 2014 joint motion to terminate as to Raymarine (the motion that produced Order No. 27) — it will carry Raymarine's then-current signature block and is the last public appearance of Raymarine's counsel in the investigation.
  3. The March 28, 2014 joint motion to terminate as to Navico and the June 2014 Garmin termination motion — these confirm the Navico and Garmin blocks at the point each respondent exited.

That would convert the Raymarine entry from a documented gap into a cited roster, and would let you date-stamp each group's counsel to the settlement event rather than to a single March 2014 filing.