DCT

1:11-cv-00385

GPS Industries LLC v. Expresso Satellite Navigation Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:11-cv-00385, W.D. Tex., 05/10/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on allegations that each Defendant transacts business within the Western District of Texas, including by making, using, selling, or offering to sell the accused products in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ respective lines of GPS-based golf rangefinder products infringe a patent related to systems for determining a player's position on a golf course and calculating distances to landmarks.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves the integration of Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers with portable devices containing digitized maps to provide real-time distance and location data in the context of sports, particularly golf.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,438,518, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination requested by a third party. The reexamination concluded with the issuance of a Reexamination Certificate on January 18, 2011, which confirmed the patentability of all reexamined claims, some in amended form. This proceeding may affect the scope of the asserted claims and strengthens the patent's statutory presumption of validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1994-01-19 '518 Patent Priority Date (as per filing date)
1995-08-01 '518 Patent Issue Date
2008-10-27 Reexamination of '518 Patent requested by a third party
2011-01-18 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued for '518 Patent
2011-05-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,438,518 - "Player Positioning and Distance Finding System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,438,518, "Player Positioning and Distance Finding System," issued August 1, 1995 (as amended by Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate US 5,438,518 C1, issued January 18, 2011).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks with prior art methods for determining a golfer's position and distance on a course. It states that traditional scorecard maps lack detail and are often inaccurate as tees and flags are moved, while on-course markers can be hard to locate or out-of-date (ʼ518 Patent, col. 1:49-59; col. 2:5-8). Existing automated systems were described as potentially complex, costly, or requiring disruptive installation of sensors on the course (ʼ518 Patent, col. 2:20-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable electronic system that determines a golfer's position using an external source like GPS and correlates that position with a stored digital map of the golf course (ʼ518 Patent, Abstract). The system's processor then calculates and communicates to the player the distance to a landmark, such as the flag on a green (ʼ518 Patent, col. 2:55-66). The claims amended during reexamination emphasize a process where the system automatically identifies the hole being played by correlating the user's GPS position with the stored location of that hole's tee box, which in turn "program[s]" the device to display the correct map and information for that hole (ʼ518 Reexam. Cert., col. 2:46-54).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided an automated and portable solution for distance measurement, aiming to give golfers more accurate and detailed on-course information than was available from physical markers or simple maps (ʼ518 Patent, col. 2:34-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 33, and 41, as amended by the reexamination certificate (Compl. ¶32).
  • Reexamined Independent Claim 1 is for a "portable distance tracking system" comprising the following essential elements:
    • A memory element for storing "digitized map representations of a plurality of holes on a plurality of golf courses, at least a first landmark for each hole, and a tee for each hole".
    • Position interface electronics including a "first GPS receiver" for receiving position signals.
    • A data processor that processes the GPS signals to determine the user's location and includes means for "correlating said geographical location ... with the tee for a particular hole ... to automatically program a particular digitized map representation for the particular hole that a golfer has selected to play".
    • The processor further includes means for determining the distance to the "first landmark".
    • A player interface to communicate the distance to the player.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses multiple GPS-based golf rangefinder product lines from seven different defendants. These include the "Bushnell Rangefinder Systems" (e.g., Yardage Pro XGC+, Neo+), "Callaway Rangefinder Systems" (e.g., uPro, uProGo), "Garmin Rangefinder Systems" (e.g., Approach G3, G5), and others (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 35, 44, 53, 62, 71, 81).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products are "GPS-based range finders" (Compl. ¶25). It asserts that these devices are used by golfers to determine distances on a golf course. The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused devices beyond the general allegation that their functionality infringes the '518 patent. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint pleads infringement at a high level without mapping specific product features to claim limitations. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory as implied by the complaint's allegations against the accused "GPS-based range finders" (Compl. ¶25).

'518 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as reexamined) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A. a memory element including means for storing digitized map representations of ... golf courses, ... a first landmark for each hole, and a tee for each hole; The accused devices are alleged to contain memory that stores digital maps of golf courses, including the locations of tees and landmarks such as greens or flags. ¶¶ 15, 25, 26 '518 Reexam. Cert., col. 2:31-34
B. position interface electronics including a first GPS receiver for receiving position indicative signals... The accused devices are alleged to be "GPS-based" and thus contain a GPS receiver to determine their geographical location. ¶¶ 15, 25 '518 Reexam. Cert., col. 2:35-40
C. a data processor ... including means for ... correlating said geographical location ... with the tee ... to automatically program a particular digitized map representation for the particular hole... The processor within the accused devices is alleged to automatically determine which hole the golfer is playing based on proximity to the tee and, in response, to display the map for that specific hole. ¶¶ 32, 33 '518 Reexam. Cert., col. 2:46-54
C. [a data processor including] ... means for determining a distance between said mobile interface unit and said first landmark; The accused "range finders" are alleged to calculate and display the distance from the user's current location to a selected landmark on the course. ¶¶ 25, 26 '518 Reexam. Cert., col. 2:57-59
D. a player interface, coupled to said data processor, and including means for communicating at least said distance... The accused devices are alleged to have a display screen that communicates the calculated distance information to the golfer. ¶¶ 25, 26 '518 Reexam. Cert., col. 2:60-64
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of the phrase "automatically program," which was added during reexamination. A central question will be whether this requires the device to select the hole map without any user input other than being physically present near a tee, or if it can be read to cover systems where the device suggests a hole that the user then confirms.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific evidence showing that the accused devices perform the "automatic programming" step by correlating the user's location with a stored tee location. A key factual question will be how the accused devices actually determine which hole to display and whether that mechanism matches the specific logic required by the reexamined claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "means for ... correlating said geographical location of said mobile interface unit with the tee for a particular hole ... to automatically program a particular digitized map representation for the particular hole that a golfer has selected to play" (from reexamined Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be a core part of the inventive concept that survived reexamination. Its construction will be critical for both infringement and validity. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will dictate whether devices that allow for manual hole selection, or use alternative logic for automatic selection, fall within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system that "automatically displays the distance from the mobile unit 200 to the flag" as the golfer plays the hole, suggesting a general focus on automation and ease of use (ʼ518 Patent, col. 8:51-54). This could support an interpretation where "automatically program" refers to the automatic display of information once a hole is selected, by any means.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific causal sequence: correlation with the tee leads to automatic programming. This suggests a narrow, specific function. The specification also describes a manual method where "the golfer can select the hole to be played" by using a command key (ʼ518 Patent, col. 8:16-17). The existence of this separate, manual mode could be used to argue that the "automatic" feature is a distinct, and narrowly defined, alternative that must be practiced exactly as recited.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that each Defendant actively induces infringement by end-users. The alleged inducing acts include the "sales, advertising, and instructions" that accompany the accused products, which allegedly encourage users to operate the devices in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 29). The complaint also alleges specific intent to encourage infringement (Compl. ¶28).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that each Defendant "knew or should have know[n]" that its actions would induce infringement by end-users (Compl. ¶30). This allegation forms the basis for a potential claim of willful infringement, which could lead to enhanced damages if proven.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and infringement: How will the court construe the term "automatically program" in light of the patent's specification and its reexamination history? The outcome will determine whether the accused devices, which may have various user-selectable modes, perform the specific function required by the claims.
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: What proof will discovery yield regarding the precise software logic and method of operation of the accused devices? Specifically, do they in fact "automatically program" a hole map based on correlating the device's GPS location with a stored tee location, or do they rely on user selection or other non-infringing methods?
  3. A further question will concern validity: Although the patent's claims were confirmed in reexamination, Defendants will likely mount another validity challenge. The case may explore whether the specific "automatic programming" feature, as construed by the court, was disclosed or rendered obvious by prior art not considered during the original examination or the reexamination.