Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Navico Holding AS et al.

I'll research this case systematically — docket, complaints, rulings, and the asserted patent.

Case Overview — Furuno Electric Co. v. Navico Holding AS, No. 3:13-cv-01684 (D. Or.)

Parties and posture. Both sides are operating companies in the recreational/commercial marine-electronics market — this is a straight competitor-on-competitor assertion, not an NPE/PAE or university case. Plaintiffs are Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. of Hyogo, Japan, and its U.S. subsidiary Furuno U.S.A., Inc. of Camas, Washington, which make and sell radar, echo sounders, GPS/chartplotters and integrated bridge displays (Furuno's own NavNet 3D line was identified as the domestic-industry product). Defendants are the Navico group — Navico Holding AS (Egersund, Norway), Navico UK Limited (Romsey, Hampshire), and Navico, Inc. (Tulsa, Oklahoma) — owner of the Simrad, Lowrance, B&G and Northstar brands. The complaint was filed September 23, 2013, the same day Furuno lodged a Section 337 complaint at the ITC, which was instituted on November 15, 2013 as Inv. No. 337-TA-900, Certain Navigation Products, Including GPS Devices, Navigation and Display Systems, Radar Systems, Navigational Aids, Mapping Systems and Related Software (78 Fed. Reg. 68861-62). The D. Or. docket shows the case as closed. (ITC institution notice; Lexology summary of the complaint)

The technology and the patent. Furuno accused Navico's marine multi-function displays (MFDs), radar systems and related software of infringing. According to contemporaneous coverage of the ITC complaint, the specifically identified Navico products were the Lowrance HDS / HDS Gen2 / HDS Gen2 Touch, B&G Zeus and Zeus Touch, Simrad NSO / NSE / NSS / TX, Northstar 6000i/6100i/8000i/M84/M121, and the Broadband Radar and HD Radar series (secondary source — I did not obtain the D. Or. complaint itself). The sole patent given in the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 7,161,561 ("Display system"), issued January 9, 2007 to inventor Kenzo Kitayama and assigned to Furuno, from an application filed in 2003 (published as US 2004/0051681 A1). Technically, the '561 patent claims an onboard architecture in which horizontal and vertical synchronizing signals from several different measuring devices (radar, GPS plotter, echo sounder) are synchronized to one another, an image-selection circuit picks and combines selected video signals (including RGB mixing/separation) for display on one or several indicators, and a common control line lets the indicator remotely set measuring ranges and other parameters on the source devices — i.e., the split-screen, multi-source MFD with remote head-unit control that is now standard on a boat's bridge. In the ITC case Furuno asserted the '561 patent alongside the '565, '292 and '447 patents, but the D. Or. case as docketed here is an '561-only assertion against Navico. (Google Patents/Patsnap record for US 7,161,561; FreePatentsOnline family)

Venue and why it mattered. Venue was the District of Oregon (Portland is the only division with a conventional civil docket for this case type; the docket entry itself does not state the division, and I could not verify the assigned judge from a primary source — treat both as unconfirmed). D. Or. was a plausible, if not obvious, forum: Furuno's U.S. operations are in the Pacific Northwest (Camas, WA), and Furuno had previously litigated the '565 and '561 patents in the same district against Honeywell International and others, so there was institutional familiarity with the patent family. Structurally, the 2013 filing was a coordinated three-front campaign: the same four patents went to the ITC against Garmin, Navico and Raymarine, with parallel D. Or. suits, of which this docket is the Navico piece. Because all of it settled before any claim construction or trial, there is no substantive ruling on the '561 patent's scope to cite — the case has essentially no precedential value, and its significance is strategic rather than doctrinal.

Outcome, linkage and market context. The ITC track resolved quickly and defendant-by-defendant: Furuno and Navico filed a joint unopposed motion to terminate as to Navico based on settlement on March 28, 2014; ALJ Order No. 14 (April 8, 2014) granted it, and the Commission declined review on April 29, 2014. Garmin followed (ALJ Order No. 23, June 30, 2014) and Raymarine last (Order No. 27, Aug. 21, 2014), with the investigation terminated in its entirety on September 22, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 57976). The D. Or. case closed on the same settlement. Two contextual points are worth flagging: (1) the '561 patent was a repeat assertion — the '565 and '561 patents had already been lit

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and the patent.

Snapshot

This was a short-lived, settlement-driven case. Furuno's D. Or. action against Navico (3:13-cv-01684) was filed the same day as its § 337 complaint, was never litigated to claim construction or trial, and was resolved by a global settlement in spring 2014 that also cleared Navico out of ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-900. The only merits activity of record on the '561 patent occurred in the ITC track (and, earlier, in the 2011–2012 Honeywell/Skyforce matters), not in Judge-assigned district court proceedings.

A threshold caveat, stated plainly: the district court docket itself (D. Or. 3:13-cv-01684) was not retrievable through open web sources during this research — Justia shows only the caption and cause of action, and PACER/CourtListener docket text was not indexed. The dates and events below that concern the D. Or. case are therefore drawn from the complaint, the Federal Register/ITC record, and party SEC disclosures, with inferences flagged. I have not invented docket entry numbers.

---

Chronological developments

Pre-history: the '561 patent in earlier proceedings (context for the 2013 suit)

Strategic point: by 2013 the '561 had already been through one ITC campaign that ended in settlement rather than adjudication. That pattern — assertion, rapid settlement, no merits ruling — repeated with Navico.

2013: filing and initial pleadings

Initial pleadings in D. Or.: Navico's answer and counterclaims (invalidity/non-infringement, and likely inequitable conduct) are not documented in any source I could access. Given the ~6-month life of the case, no motion-to-dismiss or transfer ruling on this docket appears in any reported decision — and I found no D. Or. opinion in this case on Westlaw-indexed searches, which is itself consistent with there having been no contested motions practice.

2014: narrowing, settlement, and termination

---

What did not happen (and why that matters)

• No Markman/claim construction. The case was filed 2013-09-23 and terminated roughly seven months later. No claim construction order, Markman hearing, or claim-construction opinion on the '561 appears in any searchable source. Nothing in this case construed "display system"/multiple-display limitations.
• No summary judgment, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions. The case never reached dispositive motion practice or expert discovery on the merits. No § 285 fee motion was filed or decided.
• No motion to stay pending IPR. In September 2013–April 2014, an IPR stay motion would have been procedurally plausible (IPR petitions were available from 2012-09-16), but there is no record of one in this case.
• No appeal. No Federal Circuit proceeding arises from 3:13-cv-01684.
• No PTAB IPR/PGR on the '561. I searched PTAB dockets and patent-litigation reporting and found no IPR, PGR, or CBM challenging U.S. 7,161,561 by Navico, Garmin, or Raymarine. The only USPTO-side attack on Furuno's patents in this campaign was the ex parte reexamination of the '565 patent, which canceled claims 1–3, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 — and Furuno responded by voluntarily dropping those claims from the ITC investigation on 2014-01-31. This is a negative finding; if a '561 IPR exists it is not reflected in the sources I could reach.

The one genuinely adverse merits development, and whose it was

The reexam cancellation of '565 claims is the only substantive narrowing on the patent side, and it cut against Furuno. Furuno's response — a self-initiated, unopposed motion to terminate those claims and to

I'll research Furuno's counsel in the Oregon action and the parallel ITC proceeding, starting with docket-level sources.

Quinn Emanuel is confirmed as Furuno's national counsel. Now I need the Oregon docket-level appearances and local counsel.

Bottom line

Furuno's lead trial team in this campaign was Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. That much is well sourced: contemporaneous 337 coverage identifies Quinn Emanuel as the firm that filed Furuno's § 337 complaint against Garmin, Navico and Raymarine on 9/23/2013 (CapTrade), and Quinn Emanuel's own attorney bios describe the representation ("Represented complainant Furuno in a patent-based International Trade Commission investigation against Garmin, Navico, and Raymarine. The parties reached favorable settlements following discovery" — Brett N. Watkins bio, Quinn Emanuel).

What I cannot do is give you a PACER-verified attorney list for D. Or. No. 3:13-cv-01684 itself. The free mirrors (Justia, CourtListener/ai-lab, Docket Alarm) return only case-level metadata — filed 9/23/2013, closed, NOS 830 — with no party-attorney listing, and I was cut off before I could retrieve the Oregon complaint's signature block or pro hac vice orders for this specific docket. So the table below is built from (a) the Furuno-side signature block in the immediately preceding ITC matter (337-TA-810), (b) the plaintiffs' team as reflected on the companion Oregon docket 3:13-cv-01683 (Furuno v. Garmin, also filed 9/23/2013 before Chief Judge Mosman), and (c) firm bios. I have not invented any name or docket entry, and I flag the basis for each entry.

---

Furuno's counsel — best-sourced reconstruction

Local counsel — the critical gap. D. Or. Local Rule 83 requires an Oregon-bar member as counsel of record, so a Portland firm must have been designated for Furuno. I could not identify that firm from any source I reached, and I decline to guess among the usual Portland IP firms (Schwabe, Stoel Rives, Klarquist, Lane Powell, Perkins Coie). This is the single most important open item.

In-house counsel. No Furuno legal-department attorney (Furuno Electric, Hyogo; Furuno U.S.A., Camas, WA) is identified in any source I could access. The complaints were signed by outside counsel.

---

Caveats you should carry forward

1. This is an inference chain, not a docket read. The 3:13-cv-01683 (Garmin) docket is the closest primary evidence for the Oregon pro hac vice admissions; the 337-TA-810 signature block is the closest primary evidence for firm/office/telephone. The Navico complaint (3:13-cv-01684) was filed the same day by the same firm for the same two plaintiffs, so overlap is highly probable — but "probable" is not "of record."
2. Firm-name note. Quinn Emanuel's formal name in the 2011 filings appears as "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP" (and in one signature block as "Quinn Emanuel Urghart & Sullivan"), which is the correct name for the 2013 period.
3. No fee/frivolity or sanctions activity means there are no later opinions naming Furuno's Oregon counsel either — consistent with the earlier section's finding that the case produced no substantive rulings.
4. Metadata check. Nothing here contradicts the case metadata; the only tension remains the one already flagged in earlier sections — the metadata lists the '561 patent alone, while the 9/23/2013 complaints and the ITC notice asserted the '565, '292, '561 and '447 patents.

How to close the gaps (in order of cost)

1. PACER, D. Or. 3:13-cv-01684 — pull the party/attorney report and the "Notice of Appearance" / "Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice" entries. This resolves lead vs. local counsel definitively in one pass.
2. The Navico complaint itself (D. Or. ECF No. 1) — the signature block will name the Oregon counsel of record alongside the Quinn Emanuel team. The Garmin complaint is publicly mirrored at STPI/NAR and its signature block is the fastest free proxy for the Furuno-side team; I retrieved the body text but not the signature page.
3. The joint stipulation of dismissal / settlement papers in 3:13-cv-01684 — those signature blocks will identify Oregon counsel of record for both sides as of spring 2014.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for the defendants in this case.

Let me pull the docket directly and search for Navico's counsel in the related Oregon/ITC matters.

Let me access the docket sheet directly.

Bottom line

I could not retrieve the ECF docket sheet for 3:13-cv-01684 in this session (PACER is paywalled, and the free aggregator pages for this particular case number returned only case-level metadata — filing date 9/23/2013, closed, Nature of Suit 830, three Navico defendants). So I cannot state with docket-level confidence who entered an appearance in the Oregon action. What I can source is the Navico defense team on the companion ITC proceeding covering the identical four patents (including the '561 patent), filed the same day as the Oregon suits — and that is almost certainly the same core team.

Sourced: Navico's counsel in the parallel ITC investigation

In In re Certain Navigation Products, Including GPS Devices, Navigation and Display Systems, Radar Systems, Navigational Aids, Mapping Systems and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-900 (instituted on Furuno's 9/23/2013 complaint), the signature block for "Counsel for Respondents Navico Holding AS, Navico UK Limited and Navico, Inc." lists the following:

Source: ITC filing in 337-TA-900, signature block captioned "Counsel for Respondents Navico Holding AS, Navico UK Limited and Navico, Inc." (PDF hosted at docketalarm.com/cases/International_Trade_Commission/337-900/...). Role labels above are my characterization from signature order and firm practice descriptions — the filing itself does not designate "lead," "of counsel," or "local counsel."

What I could not verify — treat as open

• Oregon local counsel of record. D. Or. Local Rule 83 requires a member of the Oregon bar as counsel of record, so a Portland firm must have appeared for Navico. I was not able to confirm which firm from a docket entry, and I will not guess. This is the single most important gap to close.
• Pro hac vice orders. In the companion case Furuno v. Garmin, 3:13-cv-01683, the docket shows pro hac vice admissions of Furuno's Quinn Emanuel team (Harold A. Barza, Marc K. Weinstein, Ryan S. Goldstein, Robert Sean Hill, Wayne Taichi Alexander). I found no equivalent confirmed pro hac vice orders for the Navico team in 3:13-cv-01684.
• Whether the ITC team is identical to the Oregon team. Highly likely given the same patents, same filing date, and same client group, but not documented in what I retrieved.
• In-house counsel. No Navico legal-department attorney is identified in the sources I found.

Suggested next steps to confirm

1. Pull the 3:13-cv-01684 docket on PACER (D. Or.) and check the "Attorneys" party listing plus entries for Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice and any Local Rule 83-1 designations.
2. Cross-check the settlement/consent-judgment filings (case closed; ITC 337-TA-900 settled April 2014) — signature blocks there will name Oregon counsel of record.
3. Check the Garmin companion case, 3:13-cv-01683, for Navico-side… (that case had Garmin, not Navico, as defendant — but the Raymarine/Garmin filings may reveal whether Bickel & Brewer coordinated the Oregon defense group).

I'd rather flag these as unconfirmed than populate the table with attorney names that aren't in a source I actually read.