DCT

2:11-cv-01578

Silver State Intellectual Tech Inc v. Garmin Intl Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:11-cv-01578, D. Nev., 09/29/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants do business and have committed acts of infringement in the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s navigation devices and smart phones infringe nine patents related to GPS-enabled features, including geotagged image handling, location-based search, traffic integration, and user-preference-based navigation.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the integration of GPS data with other functionalities such as digital cameras, communication networks, and user preferences in portable devices, a key area of innovation in the personal navigation and smartphone markets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. The asserted patents appear to stem from at least two distinct patent families, one with a priority date in 1997 and another with a priority date in 1998.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-06-20 Earliest Priority Date for ’824 and ’455 Patents
1998-10-21 Earliest Priority Date for ’768 Patent
1999-10-19 Earliest Priority Date for ’2812, ’992, ’3812, ’234, and ’039 Patents
2000-04-11 Earliest Priority Date for ’165 Patent
2003-02-25 ’768 Patent Issued
2003-03-04 ’824 Patent Issued
2003-04-01 ’2812 Patent Issued
2008-03-11 ’165 Patent Issued
2009-04-21 ’992 Patent Issued
2009-09-22 ’3812 Patent Issued
2010-01-19 ’234 Patent Issued
2010-04-20 ’455 Patent Issued
2010-06-15 ’039 Patent Issued
2011-09-29 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,525,768 - "POSITIONAL CAMERA AND GPS DATA INTERCHANGE DEVICE"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the limitations of then-contemporary GPS devices, including the difficulty of updating locally stored map data and the absence of a uniform data format for exchanging on-line, position-dependent information with third parties (’768 Patent, col. 1:36-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a Personal Communication Device (PCD) that integrates GPS, a digital camera, and communication capabilities to request, process, and transmit GPS-encoded information from various providers, reducing the need for extensive on-device storage (’768 Patent, col. 2:12-35). This system allows for dynamically retrieving and sharing location-tagged data, such as images, with other users or systems (’768 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a convergence of GPS, digital imaging, and network communication in a portable device, presaging the functionality that would later become standard in smartphones and advanced navigation units.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent Claim 2, which is an independent claim in its own right (’768 Patent, col. 29:2-23).
  • Essential elements of Claim 2 include:
    • A digital camera with GPS stamp for use with a PCD device, comprising a housing, an imaging device, a GPS receiver, and a memory.
    • The memory stores an image from the imaging device and the device's position (latitude and longitude) from the GPS receiver.
    • Communication means for transmitting the position and the image to a central computer storage system.
    • The central computer storage system provides the position and image to other PCD devices upon request.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims pending discovery (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 6,529,824 - "PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATING VOICE DATA POSITIONING INFORMATION"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’768 patent, the background highlights the difficulty of keeping map and point-of-interest data current on portable devices and the lack of standardized communication protocols for sharing such information (’824 Patent, col. 1:21-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system where a personal communication device requests location-tagged data from various data providers. A core element is a "sorting application module" that processes user requests, such as for a "specified maximum number of listings" of non-map data (e.g., restaurants), and provides data linked to specific geographic locations (’824 Patent, col. 2:11-42; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention details a client-server architecture for location-based services, where a portable device requests and receives curated, location-relevant information from networked databases.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent Claim 8, which relies on independent Claim 1 (’824 Patent, col. 18:4-5).
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A location tagged information storage and transceiver system.
    • A transceiver for receiving and transmitting digital data from a personal communication device.
    • A computer memory for storing map data and linked non-map data.
    • A sorting application module that is responsive to requests from the device for a "specified maximum number of specified non-map data concerning specified geographic areas."
    • The module searches the memory "by data fields" and provides the specified data to the transceiver for transmission.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims pending discovery (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 6,542,812 - "TECHNIQUE FOR EFFECTIVE NAVIGATION BASED ON USER PREFERENCES"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a navigation system that generates routes based on user preferences stored in profiles (e.g., personal, business, vacation). The system can also account for external conditions like traffic and weather and allows users to define "roadblocks" to avoid certain areas (’2812 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 14 (dependent on Claim 9, which is dependent on Claim 1).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by devices that "include a traffic search function to display traffic information obtained from an external source, and the option to avoid the receipt of traffic information" (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,343,165 - "GPS PUBLICATION APPLICATION SERVER"

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to a server system that receives location information from a mobile device and provides indications of that device's location to an associated home page. The system also allows application servers to "push" information to the device based on its location and user preferences (’165 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 2 (independent).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by devices "capable of running GARMIN's Ciao! social network application," suggesting the technology relates to sharing location with a network service (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 7,522,992 - "TECHNIQUE FOR EFFECTIVE NAVIGATION BASED ON USER PREFERENCES"

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the technology in the ’2812 patent, this patent further describes a navigation system that suggests goods or service providers on a map based on user preferences and location. The map includes selectable indicators that allow the user to obtain more data about a provider (’992 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 23 (dependent on Claim 22, which is dependent on Claim 1).
  • Accused Features: The accused devices allegedly "display the location of the device and one or more goods or service providers on a map in the vicinity of the device based on user preference, including one or more indicators on the map selectable to obtain data" (Compl. ¶31).

U.S. Patent No. 7,593,812 - "TECHNIQUE FOR EFFECTIVE NAVIGATION BASED ON USER PREFERENCES"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also related to the ’2812 patent family, describes a navigation device with storage for points of interest, a processor for presenting them based on user preference, and a display that allows a user to select a point of interest and retrieve connection data (e.g., a phone number) to establish a communication connection (’3812 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 10 (independent).
  • Accused Features: The accused devices allegedly "include storage for records associated with points of interest, a processor and a display for presenting points of interest based on user preference and allowing the user to select a point of interest and for retrieving connection data such as a telephone number... and further providing a user entry to establish a communications connection" (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 7,650,234 - "TECHNIQUE FOR EFFECTIVE NAVIGATION BASED ON USER PREFERENCES"

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same technology family, this patent focuses on using traffic information data to plan a route. The claimed method includes planning a route in an area other than the device's present location by taking into account traffic conditions derived from selected traffic information (’234 Patent, Abstract; Claim 17).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 17 (dependent on Claim 9, which is dependent on Claim 1).
  • Accused Features: The accused devices are alleged to "include traffic information data, such as GARMIN's trafficTrends data, and a processor capable of using the traffic information data to plan a route in an area other than the present location of the navigation device" (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 7,702,455 - "PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TO SEND AND RECEIVE VOICE DATA POSITIONING INFORMATION"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the family of the ’824 patent, describes an information apparatus that requests and processes traffic data from a provider, receives digital map information, and displays the map, device location, traffic, and waypoints for goods/service providers. A key feature is the device's capability to optimize the order of selected waypoints to suggest a route (’455 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (independent).
  • Accused Features: The accused devices allegedly include a processor for traffic data, an interface for map data, a display for showing map, location, traffic, and selectable waypoints, and are "capable of optimizing the order of the selected waypoints to suggest a route to the user" (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 7,739,039 - "TECHNIQUE FOR EFFECTIVE NAVIGATION BASED ON USER PREFERENCES"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the ’2812 family, describes a device that stores data on preferred points of interest and allows a user to input a geographic area to avoid. The processor plans a route that takes into account both a condition affecting travel (e.g., live traffic) and the user-defined avoidance area (’039 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 16 (independent).
  • Accused Features: The accused devices allegedly "include memory for storing data concerning preferred points of interest, the capability to allow user input to avoid a geographic area, an interface to receive a request to plan a route, a device for collecting information concerning a condition affecting travel, such as live traffic information, a processor capable of planning a route taking into account the condition affecting travel and the geographic area to be avoided, and a display" (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names several categories of accused instrumentalities: Garmin's handheld navigation devices (Oregon 550t, Montana 650t), automotive navigation devices (nüvi 1690, nüvi 1695, nüvi 2350, and nüvi 3700 series), the Garminfone smartphone, and associated services such as nüLink! and the Ciao! social network application (Compl. ¶11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46, 51).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these products and services incorporate a wide range of GPS-integrated features. These include the ability to capture, store, and upload geo-tagged images; receive and display real-time local content and points of interest based on user searches and preferences; incorporate and display traffic data from external sources for route planning; connect to social networks; and allow users to select points of interest on a map to initiate communication (e.g., a phone call) (Compl. ¶11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36). The complaint frames these products as "navigation devices and smart phones," placing them in the competitive markets for consumer and automotive GPS technology (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’768 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A digital camera with GPS stamp for use with a PCD device, comprising: a housing containing an imaging device; The accused Garminfone, Oregon 550t, and Montana 650t devices are alleged to be capable of capturing images. ¶11 col. 29:2-4
a GPS receiver for determining a position of the digital camera including latitude and longitudinal information; The devices are described as navigation devices, which inherently include GPS receivers for determining position. ¶11 col. 29:5-7
a memory coupled to the imaging device and the GPS receiver, the memory storing an image formed by the imaging device and the position of the digital camera...; The devices are alleged to be capable of storing geo-tagged images on the device. ¶11 col. 29:8-11
communication means for transmitting the position of the digital camera...and the image to a central computer storage system...; The devices are alleged to be capable of uploading the geo-tagged images to computer storage accessible by others. ¶11 col. 29:12-16
wherein the central computer storage system provides the position of the digital camera including the latitude and longitudinal information and the image to other PCD devices upon request. The complaint alleges the uploaded images are accessible by others, which implies the function of a central storage system making the data available. ¶11 col. 29:17-21
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "central computer storage system." The complaint alleges uploading to "computer storage accessible by others" (Compl. ¶11). The court may need to determine if this claim term, as described in a patent with a 1998 priority date, can be construed to cover modern distributed storage systems (e.g., cloud-based photo sharing services) that the accused devices might use, or if the patent requires a more literally centralized server architecture.

’824 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a transceiver receiving digital data from a personal digital communication device...; The accused nüLink! services and connected devices provide real-time local content, implying two-way communication. ¶16 col. 17:3-6
a computer processor; The accused devices are alleged to perform search and display functions, which require a processor. ¶16 col. 17:7-7
computer memory for storing map data for geographic areas and non-map data, with the non-map data in linked data fields...; The accused services provide "local content," which corresponds to non-map data (e.g., business listings) linked to geographic locations. ¶16 col. 17:8-12
a sorting application module executed by the computer processor, the sorting application module responsive to requests from the personal digital communication device, the requests being for a specified maximum number of specified non-map data...; The accused devices allegedly "receive a specified maximum number of listings in response to a search request," which corresponds to the function of the sorting module. ¶16 col. 17:13-20
the sorting application module searching the computer memory by data fields for the specified non-map data and providing the specified non-map data and map data linked to the specified non-map data to the transceiver... This describes the underlying mechanism by which the accused devices are alleged to fulfill the user's search request for a specific number of listings. ¶16 col. 17:21-26
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the search and filtering functions of Garmin's nüLink! services and devices perform the specific steps required by the "sorting application module" limitation. A key question for the court may be what evidence the complaint provides that the accused products search memory "by data fields" and respond to requests for a "specified maximum number" of listings in a manner that maps directly onto the claim language.
    • Scope Questions: Does Garmin's system of providing "real-time local content" constitute the "storing" and "searching" of "linked data fields" as described in the patent, or does it operate on a fundamentally different technical basis, such as dynamically generating results from a live database feed?

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Patent: ’768 Patent (Claim 2)

  • The Term: "central computer storage system"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement hinges on whether the location to which the accused devices upload geo-tagged images meets this definition. Defendant may argue its system relies on distributed, cloud-based, or third-party servers that do not constitute a "central" system as contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the system as providing information from "a plurality of providers" and accessing "computer and storage systems with various applications," which may suggest a distributed, networked environment rather than a single, monolithic server (col. 2:34-36).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the word "central," which may imply a single, coordinated point of storage and redistribution, as opposed to a decentralized network of servers where data might be stored. The specification also refers to a "central computer system" that "maintains a database" (col. 19:31-33), which could support a narrower construction.

Patent: ’824 Patent (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "sorting application module"
  • Context and Importance: This functional term appears to be the core of the invention. The infringement question will likely turn on whether the software and server architecture in Garmin's accused services performs the specific functions recited for this module, particularly the response to a request for a "specified maximum number" of results by searching "by data fields."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the system in general terms as using "application programs" with "protocols for users, providers, taggers... to permit communication of information," which could support a broad, functional interpretation of the module rather than a specific structural one (’824 Patent, col. 2:54-59).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific, requiring the module to be "responsive to requests... for a specified maximum number of specified non-map data" and to perform a "searching [of] the computer memory by data fields" (’824 Patent, col. 17:13-22). An embodiment describes a "Data Provider Connect" screen with fields for "MAXIMUM NUMBER OF LISTINGS" and "RETAIL CATEGORY," suggesting a specific implementation that a defendant might argue is narrower than a general search function (’824 Patent, Fig. 15).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint makes a conclusory allegation that Garmin has "indirectly infringed and is continuing to directly and indirectly infringe" (Compl. ¶11, 16, 21, etc.). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent for either induced or contributory infringement, such as referencing user manuals that instruct on infringing use or alleging the sale of a component with no substantial non-infringing use.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms such as "central computer storage system" ('768 Patent) and "sorting application module" ('824 Patent), described in patents with priority dates from the late 1990s, be construed to cover the modern, distributed, and dynamic architectures of Garmin's 2011-era navigation and cloud-based services? The outcome may depend on whether the court views these terms as describing a specific implementation or a broader function.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: given the complaint's high-level, notice-pleading allegations, a central challenge for the plaintiff will be to develop evidence through discovery that demonstrates precisely how the accused Garmin devices and services perform the specific steps and functions recited in the asserted claims, particularly for the method and system claims that require a specific sequence of operations.