DCT

5:11-cv-00085

GHJ Holdings LLC v. Garmin Intl Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:11-cv-00085, E.D. Tex., 07/11/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' sales of products in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Relator alleges that Defendants falsely marked their Forerunner 205 and 305 fitness watches with a list of expired or inapplicable patents with the intent to deceive the public, in violation of the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292.
  • Technical Context: The case concerns GPS-enabled personal fitness watches and a diverse portfolio of patents related to GPS signal processing, navigation device features, mechanical mounts, and industrial designs.
  • Key Procedural History: This is a qui tam action brought by a relator on behalf of the United States. The complaint alleges that Garmin’s sophistication, extensive patent portfolio, and prior patent litigation and licensing activities demonstrate its knowledge of the scope and status of the marked patents, which supports the required element of an intent to deceive.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1990-09-26 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,111,150
1992-05-05 U.S. Patent No. 5,111,150 Issued
1994-09-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. D365,032 and D365,292
1995-12-12 U.S. Patent No. D365,032 Issued
1995-12-19 U.S. Patent No. D365,292 Issued
1998-01-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D409,927
1999-05-18 U.S. Patent No. D409,927 Issued
1999-09-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. D427,919 and D429,173
2000-07-11 U.S. Patent No. D427,919 Issued
2000-08-08 U.S. Patent No. D429,173 Issued
2005-11-01 Garmin allegedly received license to certain patents (Compl. ¶51)
2009-12-12 U.S. Patent No. D365,032 allegedly expired (Compl. ¶15)
2009-12-19 U.S. Patent No. D365,292 allegedly expired (Compl. ¶16)
2010-09-26 U.S. Patent No. 5,111,150 allegedly expired (Compl. ¶14)
2011-03-21 Garmin filed a patent infringement suit against Bryton, Inc. (Compl. ¶11)
2011-07-11 First Amended Complaint for False Patent Marking filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,111,150, “PRECISION PHASE SHIFT SYSTEM”, Issued May 5, 1992

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty in decoding signals from global positioning satellites, which requires an internally generated signal to be synchronized with the incoming satellite signal in both frequency and phase. Prior art methods for precise phase matching were described as complex and costly (’150 Patent, col. 1:10-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system using a microprocessor, a prescaler, and a synchronizer to achieve precise, controllable phase shifting. The system generates an output signal and shifts its phase in small, successive steps relative to a base signal; it can also slightly alter the frequency of the base signal itself, which allows the system to efficiently "walk" the generated signal into phase alignment with a target signal like one from a GPS satellite (’150 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:39-54).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a more efficient, less component-heavy electronic solution for achieving phase lock in GPS receivers, a critical function for acquiring satellite signals and calculating a position (’150 Patent, col. 4:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint’s allegation regarding the ’150 Patent is that it is expired, not that its claims are inapplicable on technical grounds (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not assert specific claims. Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's scope.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites an apparatus for producing phase-shifted signals, including:
    • means for producing periodic base signals between first and second frequencies;
    • means for producing output signals in response to the base signals;
    • means for producing phase shift signals representing a plurality of successive phase shifting steps; and
    • means for shifting the phase of the output signals relative to the base signals in successive steps.

U.S. Design Patent No. D365,032, “HAND-HELD NAVIGATIONAL DEVICE”, Issued December 12, 1995

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. The objective is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for a product category, in this case a hand-held navigation device.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "hand-held navigational device" as illustrated in the patent's figures. The design features a vertically-oriented rectangular device with a screen, a specific arrangement of buttons below the screen, and ribbed textures on its side (D’032 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: Not applicable for a design patent, which concerns aesthetics rather than technical utility.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim.
  • Claim 1: "The ornamental design for a hand-held nagivational [sic] device, as shown and described."

Multi-Patent Capsule: Other Allegedly Inapplicable Design Patents

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent Nos. D365,292; D409,927; D427,919; and D429,173 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Technology Synopsis: These are design patents claiming the ornamental appearance of various electronic devices. The D’292 patent shows a handheld device with a flip-up antenna. The D’927 patent shows a horizontally-oriented handheld device with a wide screen. The D’919 and D’173 patents show designs for a ruggedized, vertically-oriented handheld device and its button controls, respectively.
  • Asserted Claims: Each design patent has a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in its figures.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the designs of the Forerunner 305 and 205 watches are "clearly not covered" by any of these patented designs (Compl. ¶45). The complaint provides images of the patented designs alongside the accused watches to illustrate the alleged visual differences (Compl. p. 23-26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Garmin Forerunner® 305 and 205 watches, referred to as the "Falsely Marked Products" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint characterizes the accused products as watches within Garmin's "outdoor/fitness market segment" that provide GPS location data (Compl. ¶12, ¶19). The Relator's central technical argument is that these products lack the specific functionalities required by the claims of the marked utility patents, such as "voice guidance," "dead reckoning position functionality," "detour route calculation capabilities," or sonar for a "fish finding apparatus" (Compl. ¶¶18-21). A photograph in the complaint shows one of the accused products, the Forerunner 305, which is a wrist-worn device with a digital display (Compl. p. 25).

IV. Analysis of False Marking Allegations

The complaint alleges false marking based on two theories: (1) the patent is expired, or (2) the patent is inapplicable to the accused products.

For U.S. Patent No. 5,111,150, the complaint’s sole allegation is that Garmin marked products with the patent after it had expired (Compl. ¶14). This is a factual allegation regarding the timing of Garmin's marking activities relative to the patent's expiration date and does not turn on a technical analysis of the claims.

For the design patents, the allegation is one of inapplicability, which turns on a visual comparison between the patented design and the accused product.

  • D’032 Patent False Marking Allegations
Claim Element (from Claim 1) Alleged Non-Matching Feature Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a hand-held nagivational device, as shown and described. The complaint alleges that the accused Forerunner 305 and 205 watches are not covered by the claimed design by providing images comparing the patented design to the products. The patented design is a vertically-oriented rectangular unit, whereas the accused products are wrist-worn watches with a distinct overall shape, button layout, and screen-to-body ratio. ¶45; p. 23; p. 25 Figs. 1–7
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question (Expired Patents): Can the Relator produce evidence that Garmin affixed the numbers of expired patents, such as the ’150 Patent, to products after their statutory expiration dates? The complaint provides a photograph of a sticker on a product listing numerous patent numbers as evidence of the marking itself (Compl. p. 6).
    • Scope Questions (Inapplicable Utility Patents): The resolution for many of the allegedly inapplicable utility patents will depend on claim construction. A central question is whether a fitness watch that provides GPS coordinates falls within the scope of terms like "navigation device" or "navigational aid," which are used in patents whose specifications describe more complex systems for vehicle routing or mapping (Compl. ¶¶18-20).
    • Visual Comparison (Inapplicable Design Patents): For the design patents, the dispute centers on the visual comparison performed by an "ordinary observer." The question for the court will be whether the accused Forerunner watches are substantially the same in ornamental appearance as the designs claimed in patents like D’032.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "navigation device" / "electronic navigational aid device"

  • Context and Importance: This term, or a close variant, appears in the claims of numerous patents Garmin allegedly marked on its products (e.g., Compl. ¶¶18, 20, 33). The Relator’s case of inapplicability often rests on the argument that the Forerunner watches are not "navigation devices" but merely GPS-enabled watches. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could resolve the applicability of a large group of the marked patents.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specifications may contain language defining "navigation device" broadly to encompass any device that uses GPS to provide location-based information to a user.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues that the context of the patents supports a narrower meaning. For example, patents titled "...With Detour Algorithm" (Compl. ¶20) or "...For Navigating a Vehicle on a Thoroughfare" (Compl. ¶33) suggest the term was intended to cover devices with mapping, routing, and turn-by-turn guidance, features the accused watches allegedly lack.

  • The Term: "mounting apparatus"

  • Context and Importance: Several allegedly inapplicable patents relate to a "mounting apparatus" for an electronic device (Compl. ¶¶22, 35). The Relator contends the Forerunner watches themselves are not mounting apparatuses. The dispute is whether a device designed to be worn on a wrist is covered by patents for device mounts.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that a watch band is a form of "mounting apparatus" for the watch body.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint includes a figure from the '185 and '933 patents that shows a multi-position, articulated cradle for a handheld device, suggesting a narrow definition that would not include a watch (Compl. p. 10). The patent titles, such as "Multi-Position Articulating Mounting Apparatus," may further support this narrower scope (Compl. ¶22).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Intent to Deceive: A critical element of a false marking claim is that the marking was done "for the purpose of deceiving the public" (35 U.S.C. § 292). The complaint alleges Garmin acted with such intent (Compl. ¶75). The specific facts alleged to support this intent include:
    • "Laundry List" Marking: The practice of marking products with a sticker containing a long list of patent numbers, many of which are allegedly expired or inapplicable, is presented as evidence of an intent to overwhelm and deter competitors rather than provide good-faith notice (Compl. ¶17). The complaint notes that using an easily updatable sticker, rather than permanent molding, and failing to remove expired patents, further indicates awareness and intent (Compl. ¶46).
    • Corporate Sophistication: The complaint alleges that Garmin is a large, sophisticated company with a portfolio of over 246 patents and extensive experience in patent litigation, and therefore knew or should have known the scope and expiration dates of its own patents (Compl. ¶¶48-50).
    • Knowledge from Prior Acts: The complaint alleges that Garmin's prior actions, such as asserting some of the marked patents in litigation against a competitor and licensing others, demonstrate that it had a "working knowledge" of the patents' scope (Compl. ¶¶50-51).

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

This case presents a combination of factual, legal, and mental-state questions for the court. The key issues that will likely determine the outcome are:

  1. The Question of Marking Practice: As a threshold matter, can the Relator establish that Garmin marked its Forerunner watches with the numbers of patents that were, in fact, either expired at the time of marking or demonstrably inapplicable to the products? This involves both a factual inquiry into dates and a legal analysis of patent scope.

  2. The Question of Claim Scope: For the "inapplicable" patents, the case will turn on claim construction. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "navigation device," used in patents describing vehicle routing systems, be construed to cover a fitness watch that only displays GPS coordinates?

  3. The Question of Deceptive Intent: Assuming the marking was inaccurate, the dispositive issue will be one of scienter: can the Relator prove that Garmin marked its products with an "intent to deceive," as required by the statute? The court will have to weigh the circumstantial evidence—such as Garmin’s sophistication, its use of "laundry list" patent stickers, and its failure to remove expired patent numbers—against any evidence that the marking was the result of a mistake or a good-faith belief in the patents' coverage.