Litigation

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

settled

337-TA-900

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. International Trade Commission
Filed: 2013-09-23
Terminated: 2014-09-22

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (9)

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.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7161561-337-ta-900 · edit in Admin

Further reading

IPR estoppel: the trade-off behind the cheapest invalidity tool
File your strongest art, file it well — or don't file at all if your strongest grounds aren't patents and publications. Estoppel is what makes IPR powerful for the system and dangerous for the defendant who underprepares.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012)
The two-step framework defendants now recite from memory comes from Mayo, not Alice. Mayo is the often-overlooked but doctrinally essential ancestor of every modern § 101 motion.
The patent litigation lifecycle
Most patent cases never reach trial. A defendant who understands the lifecycle makes better decisions about when to fight, when to settle, and when to invest in IPR — instead of overspending on whatever phase they happen to be in.
What patent litigation actually costs (AIPLA Economic Survey)
It costs a few hundred dollars to file a patent complaint and a median of $1.5M-$3.2M to defend one through trial. That gap isn't a side effect of patent litigation — for a troll, it is the entire business model.
What is a patent troll?
Patent trolls are companies whose business is suing other companies. They make nothing, sell nothing, and add nothing — they collect old patents and use them to extract settlements from companies that actually do things.

All resources →