Navog LLC v. TomTom Intl BV

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Navog LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: TomTom International BV (The Netherlands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00365, E.D. Tex., 05/16/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GPS navigation products infringe a patent related to a system for warning drivers of high-profile vehicles about upcoming low-clearance structures.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the vehicle navigation and safety market, specifically targeting the long-standing problem of collisions between large vehicles (trucks, RVs) and low overpasses or tunnels.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations of willful infringement are based on knowledge gained from the filing of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-12-13	’205 Patent Priority Date (from Provisional App. 62/266,644)
2020-03-17	’205 Patent Issue Date
2024-05-16	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,593,205 - “GPS and Warning System”

• Issued: March 17, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the significant risk and logistical challenge faced by drivers of commercial trucks, buses, and RVs who must navigate routes with potential low-clearance obstacles like bridges, tunnels, and underpasses. A misjudgment can lead to a collision, while stopping to find an alternate route wastes time and resources (’205 Patent, col. 1:56-2:3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a vehicle-mounted system that combines a GPS module for location tracking with a computer module pre-programmed with a database of low-clearance structures and their specific height measurements. By comparing the vehicle's real-time location to the database, the system can provide timely audible and visual warnings to the driver if they are approaching an impassable structure, and can also display alternate routes (’205 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-59).
• Technical Importance: The system aims to provide a dedicated, reliable safety tool to prevent a specific and dangerous type of vehicle accident that standard GPS systems may not explicitly address (’205 Patent, col. 2:12-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims of the ’205 Patent (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system itself, and independent claim 6 covers the combination of the system and a vehicle.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A main body with a hollow interior volume.
  • A computer module within the main body, adapted to be programmed with information about existing roads, bridges, viaducts, and underpasses.
  • A GPS module within the main body to provide location information.
  • At least one warning mechanism connected to the computer module, adapted to provide a loud audible sound to warn of danger from these structures.
  • A display screen on the main body to provide visual information to the driver, including the height of an approaching structure and alternate routes.
  • The computer module processes location information to determine when to trigger the warning mechanism as the vehicle approaches a dangerous structure from a predetermined distance.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices that infringe" (’205 Patent, ¶11). These are described as navigation devices sold by Defendant (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '205 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). This suggests the products are GPS navigation devices that provide routing and alerts to drivers. The complaint refers to an "Exhibit 2" containing detailed comparisons, but this exhibit was not filed with the public complaint, precluding a more specific analysis of the accused functionality (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint alleges these products are sold and used throughout the United States (Compl. ¶11, ¶14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products infringe the ’205 Patent but incorporates the substantive allegations by reference to an external "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" incorporate technology that "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '205 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

Identified Points of Contention

Lacking specific infringement contentions, analysis must focus on general questions raised by comparing the patent claims to the likely functionality of a commercial GPS product.

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether a general-purpose GPS device, which may contain road data that includes some bridge height information, meets the claim limitation of a "computer module... adapted to be programmed with information pertaining to... underpasses" (’205 Patent, col. 6:18-22). The court may need to determine if this requires a dedicated, specialized database as described in the patent, or if standard commercial map data suffices.
• Technical Questions: A likely point of dispute is whether a standard navigation audio alert (e.g., "turn left") constitutes a "warning mechanism... adapted to provide a loud audible sound adapted to warn a driver... of impending danger" as claimed (’205 Patent, col. 6:29-34). The analysis may turn on whether the accused device provides a specific, distinct warning for low-clearance hazards, as opposed to a generic route instruction. Another significant technical question could arise if Plaintiff asserts claims requiring a vehicle interlock (e.g., claim 4, "prevent the automobile from being operated until the... device is turned on"). Such a feature is not typically found in aftermarket GPS devices, suggesting a potential factual mismatch.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"computer module... adapted to be programmed with information pertaining to existing roads, bridges, viaducts, and underpasses" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is fundamental to the infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome will determine whether standard, commercially available map data (which may incidentally contain some clearance data) is sufficient to meet the claim, or if a more specialized, curated database focused on clearance heights is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, referring to "information pertaining to" structures, which could arguably encompass any map data that includes such features (’205 Patent, col. 6:20-22).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes the purpose of avoiding collisions with low-clearance structures and refers to programming the device with "underpass clearance measurements" (’205 Patent, col. 2:38-39; col. 4:45-47). This context suggests the "information" is not just locational but must include specific clearance data used for the warning function.

"warning mechanism" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term's construction will define what type of alert constitutes infringement. The dispute will likely center on whether a generic audio/visual output on a multi-function GPS device qualifies, or if the mechanism must be specifically dedicated to or configured for the low-clearance warning function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly limited in the claims. The specification describes the warning mechanism as providing a "loud audible sound and flashing light," which could describe the general capabilities of many modern GPS devices (’205 Patent, col. 2:42-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the system's "design intent" is to "safely alert, and reroute the driver" when approaching a low-clearance structure (’205 Patent, col. 1:40-43). This purpose-driven language could support an interpretation that the "warning mechanism" must be part of a function specifically implemented to achieve this safety goal, rather than a generic notification system.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’205 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the ’205 Patent since being served with the complaint and that any subsequent infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. A question of data sufficiency: Does the "information" programmed into Defendant's accused GPS devices, such as standard commercial map data, meet the requirements of the patent's claimed "computer module," or does the patent require a more specialized and curated database of structure clearance measurements?
2. A question of functional specificity: Does the general audio-visual alert functionality of a multi-purpose navigation device perform the role of the claimed "warning mechanism," or must the mechanism be part of a system specifically designed and implemented to warn of low-clearance dangers, as described in the patent's specification?
3. A question of claim scope versus product reality: If Plaintiff asserts claims that include a vehicle interlock feature (e.g., claim 9, which prevents the vehicle from operating until the system is active), a key evidentiary issue will be whether this functionality exists in any of Defendant’s accused products, as such features are uncommon in the consumer and commercial GPS market.