DCT
2:10-cv-00067
Johnson Outdoors Inc v. Navico, Inc.
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Johnson Outdoors Inc. (Wisconsin) and Johnson Outdoors Marine Electronics, Inc. (d/b/a Humminbird) (Alabama)
- Defendant: Navico, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Balch & Bingham LLP; Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
- Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00067, M.D. Ala., 06/04/2010
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Middle District of Alabama because Defendant Navico conducts regular business in the district, ships products to retailers there, operates interactive websites accessible in the district, and has sold the accused products in the district, thereby injuring Plaintiff Humminbird, an Alabama resident.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Lowrance LSS-1 StructureScan sonar systems infringe three patents related to boat-mounted, side-scan sonar imaging technology.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on technology for generating detailed, side-looking underwater images from a transducer mounted directly on a recreational watercraft, a key feature in the competitive market for high-end fish-finding equipment.
- Key Procedural History: The filing is a Second Amended Complaint. The three patents-in-suit all claim priority from a common provisional application filed in 2004.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-08-02 | Earliest Priority Date ('952, '825, '203 Patents) |
| 2005 (Fiscal) | Humminbird introduces its "Side Imaging" products |
| 2009-12-01 | (approx.) Navico commences sales of accused "StructureScan" products |
| 2010-01-26 | U.S. Patent No. 7,652,952 Issues |
| 2010-05-04 | U.S. Patent No. 7,710,825 Issues |
| 2010-06-01 | U.S. Patent No. 7,726,203 Issues |
| 2010-06-04 | Second Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,652,952 - "Sonar Imaging System For Mounting To Watercraft" (issued Jan. 26, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional side-scan sonar systems as relying on a towed transducer (a "tow fish") connected by a long cable, which is described as cumbersome for recreational boaters due to deployment hassles, cable tangles, and maneuvering difficulties (Compl. ¶2; ’952 Patent, col. 1:34-48). Directly mounting prior transducers to a boat was not a viable alternative, as their performance was optimized for a fixed distance from the seabed, a condition that a boat cannot maintain. (’952 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a sonar system with a transducer assembly designed to be mounted directly to a watercraft, such as on the hull or a trolling motor. (’952 Patent, col. 4:30-45). The transducer housing contains both side-scanning acoustic elements, which are specifically described as rectangular and angled downwards, and separate downward-looking acoustic elements. This combination provides the benefits of side-scan imaging without the drawbacks of a tow fish, while adding a traditional down-looking sonar view for target verification. (’952 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-34).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make high-resolution, side-scan sonar imaging practical and accessible for the recreational fishing market by integrating it into a single, boat-mounted unit, eliminating the need for specialized and unwieldy towed equipment. (Compl. ¶2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’952 Patent (Compl. ¶32). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
- Claim 1 requires:
- A sonar imaging system with a transducer assembly mounted to a boat.
- The assembly includes a housing with first and second side-scan acoustic elements.
- The elements transmit side-scan sonar beams to the sides of the boat and receive the returns.
- Each side-scan element has a "rectangular shape" and specific dimensions ("up to about seven inches" long and "up to about 0.5 inches" wide).
- The beams have a narrow width along the boat's direction of travel and a wide width perpendicular to it.
- Each element is oriented at a "depression angle of between about 20 degrees and about 40 degrees".
- An electronic control head is coupled to the transducer to display the sonar images.
U.S. Patent No. 7,710,825 - "Side Scan Sonar Imaging System With Boat Position On Display" (issued May 4, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, this patent addresses the inconvenience of traditional tow-fish sonar systems. (’825 Patent, col. 1:41-59). The focus here shifts from the transducer hardware to the user's ability to interpret the resulting image. Without a clear point of reference, a side-scan image can be difficult to orient and use for navigation or marking spots.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that processes signals from boat-mounted side-scan transducers and generates a specific type of display. The display shows the underwater sonar image and, critically, also depicts "a boat location relative to the underwater image" and "an indication of distance from the boat". (’825 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1). This provides the user with an intuitive, map-like view, showing where they are in relation to underwater structures. (See ’825 Patent, Fig. 19; col. 11:15-21).
- Technical Importance: By integrating the boat's position directly into the sonar display, the invention makes the data more immediately useful for navigation, allowing an operator to precisely locate and return to specific underwater targets like fish or structures. (Compl. ¶2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’825 Patent (Compl. ¶38). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Claim 1 requires:
- A system with left and right side-scan sonar transducers.
- Signal processing circuitry to produce side-scan image data.
- A display.
- A digital processor that generates a display image showing:
- a) at least one of a left or right side underwater image;
- b) a "boat location relative to the underwater image"; and
- c) an "indication of distance from the boat".
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,726,203 - "Side Scan Sonar Imaging System With Associated GPS Data" (issued June 1, 2010)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for accurate target location and efficient area mapping in sonar systems. (’203 Patent, col. 4:40-45). It solves this by integrating GPS data with the boat-mounted side-scan sonar system, allowing a user to mark waypoints on the sonar display and using GPS speed to provide a more dimensionally accurate image by correcting the screen's scroll rate. (’203 Patent, col. 4:40-55).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’203 Patent. (Compl. ¶44).
- Accused Features: The accused features are the Navico StructureScan products when used with a Lowrance HDS display, which allegedly incorporate GPS functionality to create an infringing system. (Compl. ¶¶6, 26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Navico’s "Lowrance LSS-1 StructureScan Imaging System" ("StructureScan"), which includes an "LSS-1 StructureScan Imaging Module" and an "LSS-1 Imaging Transducer assembly," when used in conjunction with a Lowrance High Definition System (“HDS”) display (collectively, the "Infringing Products"). (Compl. ¶¶5, 6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the StructureScan system is a side-scan sonar product that performs the same function as Plaintiff's patented "Side Imaging" technology. (Compl. ¶5). The complaint asserts that Navico developed its products to "copy Humminbird's side scan sonar technology" and "compete more effectively" after losing market share to Plaintiff's commercially successful products. (Compl. ¶¶20-21). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of the accused transducer or display beyond these general allegations.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'952 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a transducer assembly mounted to a boat | The complaint alleges infringement occurs when the StructureScan product is "mounted to a boat." | ¶26 | col. 11:49-50 |
| first and second side scan acoustic elements positioned within the housing | The accused LSS-1 Imaging Transducer assembly, which forms part of the StructureScan product, allegedly contains infringing acoustic elements. | ¶¶5, 6 | col. 5:4-7 |
| each side scan acoustic element having a rectangular shape | The complaint alleges that the StructureScan product directly infringes, which suggests the transducer elements have the claimed rectangular shape. | ¶26 | col. 5:23-26 |
| each side scan acoustic element being mounted within the housing and oriented at a depression angle of between about 20 degrees and about 40 degrees | The complaint's allegation of direct infringement suggests the transducer elements in the StructureScan product are oriented at the claimed depression angle. | ¶26 | col. 12:62-65 |
| an electronic control head operatively coupled to the transducer assembly... for displaying side scan sonar images | The accused system includes a Lowrance HDS display operably connected to the StructureScan transducer to create and display a sonar system. | ¶¶6, 27 | col. 13:1-7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Questions: The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing specific factual support. Key questions will be whether the accused LSS-1 transducer's acoustic elements are in fact "rectangular" and whether they are physically oriented at a "depression angle of between about 20 degrees and about 40 degrees" as required by the claim. These are purely factual matters that will depend on evidence produced during discovery.
- Scope Questions: The term "about" preceding the dimensional and angular limitations (e.g., "about 20 degrees") raises a question of scope. The parties will likely dispute how much deviation from the recited numbers is permissible under this term.
'825 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a left side scan sonar transducer... a right side scan sonar transducer | The accused LSS-1 Imaging Transducer assembly allegedly functions as a left and right side-scan sonar transducer. | ¶¶5, 6 | col. 12:51-65 |
| signal processing circuitry... to produce side scan image data | The accused LSS-1 StructureScan Imaging Module allegedly processes sonar returns to produce image data for the HDS display. | ¶¶5, 6 | col. 13:7-9 |
| a display image on the display showing... a boat location relative to the underwater image | The Lowrance HDS display, when used with the StructureScan system, allegedly generates a display showing the boat's position relative to the sonar image. | ¶6 | col. 13:15-18 |
| a display image on the display showing... an indication of distance from the boat | The Lowrance HDS display allegedly generates a display that includes a scale or other indication of lateral distance from the boat. | ¶6 | col. 13:18-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The central issue is how the accused HDS display presents information. The complaint lacks any visual evidence, raising the question of what proof exists that the accused system generates a display showing a "boat location relative to the underwater image" and an "indication of distance" as claimed. The dispute will focus on whether the visual output of the accused product meets these specific functional limitations.
- Scope Questions: The construction of "boat location relative to the underwater image" will be critical. The court may need to decide whether this requires a specific icon, like the schematic boat shown in the patent’s figures, or if a simpler graphical element, such as a central dividing line, meets the limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1 ('952 Patent): "depression angle of between about 20 degrees and about 40 degrees"
- Context and Importance: This numerical range is a specific limitation distinguishing the invention from prior art transducers. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on whether the accused transducer is physically constructed to operate within this angular range. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a potentially dispositive, measurable, and non-obvious feature of the claimed hardware.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests this range is part of a "preferred embodiment," and that in alternative embodiments, "the side scan elements are mounted with any of a variety of orientations and directions." (’952 Patent, col. 6:50-54). A party might argue this supports a construction that is not rigidly tied to the exact numbers.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly recites the 20-40 degree range. The specification identifies this downward angle as a key feature that provides "better coverage" for a watercraft-mounted system, distinguishing it from tow-fish designs. (’952 Patent, col. 2:53-65). A "particularly preferred embodiment" is disclosed as having an angle of "about 30 degrees." (’952 Patent, col. 6:48-50).
Term 2 ('825 Patent): "a boat location relative to the underwater image"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the primary user-interface innovation of the ’825 patent. The entire infringement case for the display-related claims depends on whether the accused HDS display shows a feature that meets this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent figures show a simple icon (122) at the top center of the display, which could support an interpretation that any on-screen element indicating the boat's path or current position satisfies the limitation. (’825 Patent, Fig. 19).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the element as "an icon 122 (in the form of a schematic watercraft)" that "indicates the position and orientation and direction of travel of the watercraft 10." (’825 Patent, col. 11:18-21). A party could argue that to meet this limitation, the "boat location" must be more than a simple line and must convey this specific set of information.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Navico induced and contributed to infringement by "instructing purchasers of the 'StructureScan' product to mount its Imaging Transducer assembly to a boat and to operably connect its Imaging Module to a Lowrance HDS display to create a sonar system with side scan sonar capability." (Compl. ¶27).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness "upon information and belief" for all three patents. (Compl. ¶¶35, 41, 47). It further alleges that Navico had pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's pending patent applications and the patentability of the claims therein before launching its competing products, which may be used to argue that any subsequent infringement was willful. (Compl. ¶5).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of physical correspondence: Does the accused Navico transducer physically embody the specific structural limitations of the ’952 patent, namely the "rectangular shape" and the "depression angle of between about 20 and about 40 degrees"? The complaint’s lack of technical specifics or visual evidence makes this a primary point for discovery.
- The case will likely turn on a question of functional and visual scope: Does the user interface of the accused Lowrance HDS display, when operating with the StructureScan system, show a "boat location relative to the underwater image" as required by the ’825 patent? The court’s construction of this claim phrase, and the evidence of what the accused display actually shows, will be dispositive for the display-related patent claims.