Looks like Garmin is sueing Uavionix

[Checkout_my_Six]

another reason not to buy Garmin....

 

[MtnMarcus]

It's customary that if the defense prevails they're awarded legal fees. Well, according to my patent lawyer.

It's far from "customary", and very difficult, to get awarded legal fees even if a jury overwhelmingly finds in your favor. Attorneys will tell you this though so you will continue to employ them. The attorney profession is one of utter disgust and slimyness!

 

[Stewartb]

Are you experienced in patent law?

 

[MtnMarcus]

Are you experienced in patent law?

Not beyond real life hands on experience and seeing first hand on more than one occasion how it all works. So yes my experience is quite a bit more than the BS attorney will spew. The overwhelming majority of these attorney's have not been in a jury trial.

 

[PPC1052]

Given that Garmin’s patent claim boils down to the ADSB device listening to a mode c transponder transmission to gather information, it may not be a long case. It seems pretty easy to claim that Uavonix is doing the same thing.

OTOH, I don’t know that this is a particularly innovative thing to do

You have touched on a major issue in patent cases--obviousness. Even if a patent was issued by the patent office, an allegedly infringing party can attempt to invalidate the patent by claiming that the patent should not have been issued. In general, patents are not supposed to be issued when the innovation is obvious. So, there could be a large battle about the proper issuance of this patent on the basis that it was an obvious invention, and therefore the idea was not properly patentable. If this sounds like an expensive issue to litigate, well, you would be right. (Caveat: I am not a patent lawyer, but my brother is, and we have spent many lunches discussing legal issues, including this one.)

 

[PPC1052]

These types of lawsuits cost millions of dollars in attorney's fees to defend. Uavionix does not seem like a very large company and having to come up with 5-10 million dollars to defend themselves could very easily drive them out of business very well could be Garmin's strategy. This type of thing happens all the time.

Yep.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Because it’s a super vague and broad patent that probably shouldn’t have been awarded and the only reason garmin is tossing weight at the little guy is because despite all the money and resources garmin has they can’t put out a innovative and competitive product, so they just sue to people who do with their vague patents.

Companies do try to "spread" their patents as broadly as possible, and include as many possible derivations of their idea as possible. When a medicinal compound is patented, I know the pharmaceutical companies include in the patent application not only the active pharmaceutical ingredient they will sell, but also as many related compounds as they can think of. What you call "super vague and broad" is just a way of maximizing their profits. If you were a shareholder, you'd want the company to maximize the reach of their patents.

You seem to have "patent troll" backwards, defined as:
Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent
Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service
Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base
Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights
Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers.

As Garmin has the GDL 88 on the market, based on their own R&D and manufacturing efforts, the definitions above don't seem to apply.

What the patent is about is interrogating your own transponder in order to get your squawk code for the ADS-B out transmission. Otherwise it requires a hardwired signal from your transponder. It saves some installation costs, but the obvious reason Garmin wants it is to knock out competition.

Stewart, not a lawyer, but I do have specific training in IP law. Triviality is a disqualifying factor, but it rarely comes up. It's really difficult to demonstrate the common art from 10 years ago. It's easier today with tools like Google's date search and the Way Back Machine. I've been reading some internet articles from 2009 and it seems to me that it's wasn't really a leap, which is why I think they don't have an open and shut case.

That's what patents do- they prevent competition on an idea for a period of time. It's in the Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

That is a monopoly for a limited period of time for an idea.

 

[PPC1052]

Do you know if Garmin had to file in Montana because that’s where Uavionix is?

They can file the action either where the defendant is incorporated, or where the defendant "infringed and has a regular and established place of business." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1400

 

[bflynn]

What are some examples where an ‘idea’ has successfully been patented?

Here's an old one - http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8978130.PN.&OS=PN/8978130&RS=PN/8978130. The patent is for a "Mother May I" permission system for communciations to be implemented on a computer system using authorization codes. As written it could be argued that it covers every method of a parent granting permission for a child to communicate with anyone else using an electronic device. It is in the class of what are called abstract software patents. This is an old example, but there are probably thousands and thousands of these.

I also remember one I assisted in reviewing some years ago which wanted to patent the use of a database cache for medical records billing. Despite pointing out that it was describing a system which was already commonly in use, the patent was eventually granted because the PTO is sorely lacking in experts in the technical fields it grants patents for.

I used to be really involved because it was part of my job to evaluate patent viability. I don't keep up with the daily ins and out of patent law anymore, but I do know how the system works and how it is broken.

And bonus, as part of working in this field, I got to check off a bucket list item by getting a patent on a telescoping collapsible box.

 

[PPC1052]

He's a good question for those interested or involved. The guys keep selling their tail beacon thingie, and folks keep buying it despite the suit. Lawsuits can take forever. So the tail boom guys string it along and keep selling thingies. Case finally goes to trial and the tail boom guys loose. What happens to all the tail boom thingies hanging off the tail booms of all those airplanes? Does Garmin have the personnel and resources to track them all down?

If the tail boom guys loose the suit they're out of business and won't be around to fix your tail boom thingie. Then again, at the price for which they're selling, did you really think they were going to fix them in the first place?

The units don't have to be recalled, but the damages that the infringer owes the patent holder can be based on total units sold. (i.e., ill gotten profit per unit times number of units sold = compensatory damage award)

 

[Stewartb]

Patent cases are usually filed in a region where the case will be heard quicker.

 

[PPC1052]

Patent cases are usually filed in a region where the case will be heard quicker.

I suspect they choose venues where they think that they will "win." The term "win," of course, varies based on the plaintiff's ultimate goal. Being resolved quickly may not be the ultimate goal.

 

[James331]

Any of you guys IP lawyers? I’m not but my kid is. There’s always more to it than what we think. Garmin has every right to defend their patent. Courts hear the case and make the verdict. It’s a beautiful system. Sit back and let it work.

No, my parents were married when they had me

 

[Stewartb]

No, they go where the court isn't as backed up. My daughter and her firm made a living from it. Big New York cases heard in east Texas.

 

[bflynn]

That's what patents do- they prevent competition on an idea for a period of time.

That is exactly what patents do. But the reason for granting the monopoly is because we want to encourage innovation, which is eventually made available to all of society. It is to be a private advantage followed by public benefit.

What I've said is that by my reading of internet articles existing prior to the Garmin patent, I'm not convinced that they have a strong case for claiming innovation. I cannot find it again now, but there was one early 2009 paper from MIT that said something about interrogating Mode C transponders and then on the next page asked about the development of alternative sources for determining the the current squawk code for the ADS-B Out squit. This is why I put Garmin on somewhat thin ice. What helps them is the difficulty in researching what was known and not known from 10 years ago.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

That is exactly what patents do. But the reason for granting the monopoly is because we want to encourage innovation, which is eventually made available to all of society. It is to be a private advantage followed by public benefit.

What I've said is that by my reading of internet articles existing prior to the Garmin patent, I'm not convinced that they have a strong case for claiming innovation. I cannot find it again now, but there was one early 2009 paper from MIT that said something about interrogating Mode C transponders and then on the next page asked about the development of alternative sources for determining the the current squawk code for the ADS-B Out squit. This is why I put Garmin on somewhat thin ice. What helps them is the difficulty in researching what was known and not known from 10 years ago.

I was merely responding to those saying that Garmin was trying to "knock out the competition", stomp the little guy, and so forth. Patents allow that to happen, for good or ill.

As for the obviousness of the ideas/inventions in question, or whether those ideas were prior art, and so forth, I have neither the legal nor the technical expertise to make any further contribution other than an opinion.

I suspect that, were the situation reversed, Garmin would still be cast as the "bad guy" in this forum by the same people lambasting them now.

 

[PPC1052]

No, they go where the court isn't as backed up. My daughter and her firm made a living from it. Big New York cases heard in east Texas.

I promise you no one wants a quick defeat. It's not the speed that draws them.

"Since 2014, a single judge in the Eastern District of Texas has handled one-quarter of all patent cases nationwide."​

I wonder why? Oh, yeah.

"In the most popular patent district, the Eastern District of Texas, the patent holder wins 72% of all jury trials."​

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/16-341-pet-amicus-48-Internet-Companies.pdf

 

[Stewartb]

Maybe because the cases have merit? You guys can argue what you don't know all you want. I'll watch with mild curiosity and hope to learn something along the way.

 

[MBDiagMan]

This is disgusting! I can’t stand companies that seek to monopolize. Competition is good for everyone except the monopolizer.

Where does a nine hundred pound gorilla sleep? Answer: anywhere he chooses.

 

[PPC1052]

Maybe because the cases have merit?

"[J]udges in the Eastern District of Texas grant summary judgment at less than one quarter the rate of judges in other districts."

"Similarly, motions to stay pending inter partes review are granted 62% of the time nationally (and 80.4% of the time nationally when the plaintiff is a non-practicing entity), but only 15.6% of the time in the Eastern District of Texas."


"In examining the most popular patent jurisdiction resulting from the Federal Circuit’s refusal to apply any meaningful restrictions on venue, scholars have concluded “that the driving force behind the jurisdiction’s popularity is the combination of plaintiffs’ ability to impose early, broad discovery obligations on accused infringers and defendants’ inability to obtain an early procedural or substantive victory through motion practice.”

Sorry, but the choice to select the eastern district of Texas isn't out of some altruistic decision to file in a less clogged up venue. But the Supreme Court seems to have whacked back on that practice recently: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-341_8n59.pdf

 

[SkyDog58]

This^^^^
A person is smart. Juries are stupid.

But that would throw out the entire wisdom of crowds philosophy and someone made a lot of money on that book.

 

[RyanShort1]

I suspect that, were the situation reversed, Garmin would still be cast as the "bad guy" in this forum by the same people lambasting them now.

Maybe so, and for reason, with feeling! Those of us that "have" to fly in Bravo feel ripped off and forced to buy this stuff and it'd be nice if Garmin had made a version like Uavionics has with respect and regards to the budget flyer. Them doing this is very very annoying.

 

[PA28Flyer]

That didnt hinder certification of the wing mounted beacon before OSH.

uAvionix does not hold any such certification, AFAIK. They are (pre-)selling units that they intend to achieve TSO authorization on. This is the same case as with SkyGuardTWX.

 

[luvflyin]

I suspect they choose venues where they think that they will "win." The term "win," of course, varies based on the plaintiff's ultimate goal. Being resolved quickly may not be the ultimate goal.

I'd think time would be a factor to Garmin given the rush to get these products installed by the ADSB mandate date. But then who knows, the Jury pool in Montana vs Oregon could be crossing their minds or they have vetted the Judges

 

[SoCalPilot88]

I hope this process is slow enough for uAvionix to start shipping certified tail beacon units. I'd rather take a $2000 gamble on uAvionix rather than give it to Garmin for their invasive, expensive design. I can install uAvionix myself as an A&P and have my IA sign it off. With Garmin you have to go to an approved avionics shop and sit on your hands in the corner while they rack up the hours tearing into your plane.

Worse case, if the uAvionix tail beacon stops working in a few years, there are bound to be similar types of replacements, even if it's Garmin. By then, Garmin will have an ADSB unit that replaces the nav light. Then uAvionix can turn around and sue Garmin.

 

[luvflyin]

That is exactly what patents do. But the reason for granting the monopoly is because we want to encourage innovation, which is eventually made available to all of society. It is to be a private advantage followed by public benefit.

What I've said is that by my reading of internet articles existing prior to the Garmin patent, I'm not convinced that they have a strong case for claiming innovation. I cannot find it again now, but there was one early 2009 paper from MIT that said something about interrogating Mode C transponders and then on the next page asked about the development of alternative sources for determining the the current squawk code for the ADS-B Out squit. This is why I put Garmin on somewhat thin ice. What helps them is the difficulty in researching what was known and not known from 10 years ago.

Looks like a little research is going on here. Wonder if the defense knows who POA is.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

I hope this process is slow enough for uAvionix to start shipping certified tail beacon units. I'd rather take a $2000 gamble on uAvionix rather than give it to Garmin for their invasive, expensive design. I can install uAvionix myself as an A&P and have my IA sign it off. With Garmin you have to go to an approved avionics shop and sit on your hands in the corner while they rack up the hours tearing into your plane.

Worse case, if the uAvionix tail beacon stops working in a few years, there are bound to be similar types of replacements, even if it's Garmin. By then, Garmin will have an ADSB unit that replaces the nav light. Then uAvionix can turn around and sue Garmin.

Any A&P can install the GDL82, and it costs about the same (if not cheaper) than the tailbeacon - though it is a more involved install.

 

[luvflyin]

Here's an old one - http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8978130.PN.&OS=PN/8978130&RS=PN/8978130. The patent is for a "Mother May I" permission system for communciations to be implemented on a computer system using authorization codes. As written it could be argued that it covers every method of a parent granting permission for a child to communicate with anyone else using an electronic device. It is in the class of what are called abstract software patents. This is an old example, but there are probably thousands and thousands of these.

I also remember one I assisted in reviewing some years ago which wanted to patent the use of a database cache for medical records billing. Despite pointing out that it was describing a system which was already commonly in use, the patent was eventually granted because the PTO is sorely lacking in experts in the technical fields it grants patents for.

I used to be really involved because it was part of my job to evaluate patent viability. I don't keep up with the daily ins and out of patent law anymore, but I do know how the system works and how it is broken.

And bonus, as part of working in this field, I got to check off a bucket list item by getting a patent on a telescoping collapsible box.

Lets say the Patent holds. It's Garmins baby. Can the Court set limits. Like can they not let Garmin play the 'supply and demand and we got the supply so pay up' card. Citing the Public Good and the fact the products use is mandated by Law, could they set a cap on Royalties that ensures their R&D costs are covered, but not allow them 'windfall?'

 

[chemgeek]

The guys keep selling their tail beacon thingie, and folks keep buying it despite the suit. Lawsuits can take forever. So the tail boom guys string it along and keep selling thingies. Case finally goes to trial and the tail boom guys loose. What happens to all the tail boom thingies hanging off the tail booms of all those airplanes? Does Garmin have the personnel and resources to track them all down?

If the tail boom guys loose the suit they're out of business and won't be around to fix your tail boom thingie. Then again, at the price for which they're selling, did you really think they were going to fix them in the first place?

If the judge decides to issue an injunction on continued sales, then you won't even be able to buy a unit. Don't know how likely that is to happen. Either way, uAvionix is in deep sneakers. How many $2000 units are they going to sell with no assurance of future support? Not I.

 

[chemgeek]

This is disgusting! I can’t stand companies that seek to monopolize. Competition is good for everyone except the monopolizer.

Where does a nine hundred pound gorilla sleep? Answer: anywhere he chooses.

Bear in mind that patents are granted to protect hard-earned intellectual property of innovation and invention for a reasonable period of time before giving it away to the public. Without patent protection for innovation, not much expensive innovation would happen. (Consider that it costs approximately $1B to develop a new category of pharmaceutical--who would develop new therapies if they were forced to give that IP away for free while incurring $1B in research, development, and safety costs?) While it is possible to abuse patent laws (e.g. patent trolls), the core principle is important. Whether or not Garmin's patent is a valid patentable idea is another question, but if their patent is upheld, it is very likely that uAvionix is in a bit of trouble for using that technology.

Intellectual property protection is viewed as so economically important that Congressional power to protect IP rights was enshrined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I do understand that chemgeek and if Garmin holds legitimate patent to a specific technology, then I will withdraw my comment. I could not open enough of the patent document to determine that. I suspect that they are trying to push through some general technology as a specific invention such as wireless connection. If Garmin developed a specific piece of technology and uavionix stole it, then I will be on the side of the 900 pound gorilla.

The Selden patent comes to mind here. Selden tried to patent the automobile with a very general, broad brush description of a car. Henry Ford came to him when he was a small manufacturer offering to join their organization and pay their royalties and they snobbed him thinking he was a crackpot because he wanted to make zillions of cheap cars instead of a small number of expensive ones. Then when Selden decided he would collect his royalties from Henry, Ford was too big to screw with. Ford said “well we shall see about this.” Turned out the patent included a two cycle engine. This is kind of backwards to the Garmin situation, but if the patent is dictating something common as the violation rather than their own specific developments, I hope they get taken to the cleaners.

If it turns out that Garmin is indeed just being the 900 pound gorilla and trying to squeeze them out, I will trade my Garmin for an Avidyne and tell them they can kiss it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Maybe because the cases have merit? You guys can argue what you don't know all you want. I'll watch with mild curiosity and hope to learn something along the way.

Certainly possible.

It's interesting to read the comments that immediately paint Garmin as a bad guy patent troll. That may be true or may not. As you say, we don't know. But I wonder how many of them run businesses which have intellectual property of one type or another and would happily stand by if someone else used the results of their research and investment.

 

[chemgeek]

I could not open enough of the patent document to determine that. I suspect that they are trying to push through some general technology as a specific invention such as wireless connection. If Garmin developed a specific piece of technology and uavionix stole it, then I will be on the side of the 900 pound gorilla.

The technology that Garmin patented was the ability of an ADS-B unit to interrogate an existing transponder to get all the necessary information for ADS-B from it without requiring wired communication. The full text of the complaint can be found here. The main question is whether or not anyone can make a convincing argument that the idea or implementation is not patentable. That may be the gamble the smaller companies are taking, but at a cost they may not be able to afford.

 

[bflynn]

Looks like a little research is going on here. Wonder if the defense knows who POA is.

I had severe insomnia last night.

Gee, I wonder if "internet researcher" is a legitimate job that pays well?

 

[Bell206]

Can the FAA revoke certification and make the installation illegal?

Yes and no. The FAA can revoke any certification but I think in this case the U beacon is not certified yet. However, if it was certified and you had installed on your aircraft it would require an AD to correct the issue. I won't say never, but I've yet to see or hear the FAA get involved in patent or copyright cases. The only problem I see on the FAA certification side is whose name will the STC be listed under the STC, Ua or Garmin.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Actually I am retired now, but most of my career was spent in a software development company with very few avenues for patent protection. We protected our IP with software security including dongles and other means. The algorithms were developed by one of the most brilliant Software coders that ever drew a breath, so we survived many years without any serious threat. So, yes I do understand the value and sacred nature of intellectual property.

I will say it for a third time. If specific development was stolen from Garmin, hang ‘em high, but if Garmin is just being the 900 pound gorilla I have no sympathy for them.

 

[chemgeek]

The issue at hand is that this lawsuit will significantly impact those who have not yet complied with the ADS-B mandate, and are considering the uAvionix product as a simple and affordable solution. Especially for those not tied into Garmin's ecosystem. The mere existence of the lawsuit will significantly alter the landscape of compliance choices, no matter which side prevails. But at the moment it is not obvious that the litigation is totally meritless, so I'm not optimistic for a good outcome for uAvionix.

I just checked out my Lynx NGT-9000 install-in-progress this morning. Looks good, and is independent of the Garmin stuff. Buh-bye Narco AT-50.

 

[farmrjohn]

The technology that Garmin patented was the ability of an ADS-B unit to interrogate an existing transponder to get all the necessary information for ADS-B from it without requiring wired communication. The full text of the complaint can be found here. The main question is whether or not anyone can make a convincing argument that the idea or implementation is not patentable. That may be the gamble the smaller companies are taking, but at a cost they may not be able to afford.

This could get interesting if they don't settle. Judging from the abstracts for their respective patents there does seem to be a difference in how the transponder information is gathered, not the concept of gathering the information itself. I hope this gets resolved before 2020 since I need ADS-B but the install costs for the Garmin/Appareo systems is co$tly, at least here in Cali.

Garmin patent abstract:
In one or more implementations, a receiver is associated with the ADS-B system in the aircraft. The receiver is configured to receive transmissions from a transponder of the aircraft, such as a radar transponder of a Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), or the like. Information used by the ADS-B system is extracted from the received transmissions and furnished to the ADS-B transceiver for broadcast over the ADS-B datalink.

Uavionix patent abstract:
The ADS-B radio extracts Mode transponder data from parasitic oscillations on the aircraft power line induced by transmissions of ownship radar transponder reply signals. The radio is configured for replacement installation of an aircraft lighting assembly, and connection thereby to legacy onboard power sources without resorting to wireless or wired radar transponder, or pneumatic connections.

 

[MBDiagMan]

The technology that Garmin patented was the ability of an ADS-B unit to interrogate an existing transponder to get all the necessary information for ADS-B from it without requiring wired communication. The full text of the complaint can be found here. The main question is whether or not anyone can make a convincing argument that the idea or implementation is not patentable. That may be the gamble the smaller companies are taking, but at a cost they may not be able to afford.

Thanks chemgeek. I perused the document. What was not clear was whether or not uAvionix stripped code from Garmin, or developed the same functionality from scratch. I am certainly no attorney, so what I think has nothing to do with how this is seen from the perspective of a patent lawyer. For me, if uAvionix stripped code that was developed by Garmin and incorporated it into Skybeacon, they are thieves. If OTOH they developed the functionality on their own, they are innovative. I fully expect that that what I Describe as being right or wrong will have zero to do with the outcome of this case.

 

[MBDiagMan]

The issue at hand is that this lawsuit will significantly impact those who have not yet complied with the ADS-B mandate, and are considering the uAvionix product as a simple and affordable solution. Especially for those not tied into Garmin's ecosystem. The mere existence of the lawsuit will significantly alter the landscape of compliance choices, no matter which side prevails. But at the moment it is not obvious that the litigation is totally meritless, so I'm not optimistic for a good outcome for uAvionix.

I just checked out my Lynx NGT-9000 install-in-progress this morning. Looks good, and is independent of the Garmin stuff. Buh-bye Narco AT-50.

I think you made a wise decision with the NGT-9000. I put in a GTX345 a few months ago. In retrospect, it was a fire, ready, aim decision.