Looks like Garmin is sueing Uavionix

800 pound gorilla takes no prisoners.
 
If uavionix infringed on Garmin's patents I can't say that I blame Garmin. Wonder how that's going to affect those who already have the little wing light thingy installed.
 
Patent cases takes years, this is going to be an interesting battle
 
bummer..

I was planning to go with a GDL-82 in spite of my general dislike of Garmin...but knowing this now makes me feel...kinda dirty.
 
Last edited:
Makes me feel better about going the independently redundant NGT9000 route.
 
This is disappointing. I was banking on a Uavionics Tail Beacon. I wonder what would happen if I installed a Uavionics Tail Beacon and then they ended up losing the suit. Can the FAA revoke certification and make the installation illegal?
 
Patent trolls are going to troll.
 
Requires a login to get in...anyone know which patent is problematic?
 
Click on the "view complaint" box. "'301 patent" is mentioned several times.
 
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, but determining the state of the art 10 years later is difficult. It is an interesting technique, but to me it seems like a trivial thing to claim a patent on listening to other signals being broadcast. There is plenty of literature talking about ATC using both Mode S and Mode C and about ADSB-in using Mode C.

One thing I see that may not work in Garmin’s favor is that their patent date is Dec 2009, but early in 2009 they were already talking up the ease of the 330 ES transponder. They released a slew of new designs in mid-late 2009 and may have jumped the gun on using the technique before filing the patent. Public disclosure will usually invalidate a patent.
 
bflynn said:
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, but determining the state of the art 10 years later is difficult. It is an interesting technique, but to me it seems like a trivial thing to claim a patent on listening to other signals being broadcast. There is plenty of literature talking about ATC using both Mode S and Mode C and about ADSB-in using Mode C.

One thing I see that may not work in Garmin’s favor is that their patent date is Dec 2009, but early in 2009 they were already talking up the ease of the 330 ES transponder. They released a slew of new designs in mid-late 2009 and may have jumped the gun on using the technique before filing the patent. Public disclosure will usually invalidate a patent.
Click to expand...

Yeah. On the one hand the 301 patent sure looks Garmin patented the ‘wireless’ solution making it seem like they have this case in the bag. The dude in the robe with the big wood hammer should look at it and say Garmin thought of it and Patented it first, slam the gavel down and say case closed. But Garmin is demanding a Jury trial. Why?
 
Last edited:
SoCalPilot88 said:
This is disappointing. I was banking on a Uavionics Tail Beacon. I wonder what would happen if I installed a Uavionics Tail Beacon and then they ended up losing the suit. Can the FAA revoke certification and make the installation illegal?
Click to expand...

I don't think that the FAA cares about patent suits between companies.
 
SoCalPilot88 said:
This is disappointing. I was banking on a Uavionics Tail Beacon. I wonder what would happen if I installed a Uavionics Tail Beacon and then they ended up losing the suit. Can the FAA revoke certification and make the installation illegal?
Click to expand...

I doubt that. I don’t know why other than it just doesn’t pass the logic check.
 
I have no desire to invest several thousands of dollars, and major wiring rework, for Garmin's ADSB solution. I think when Uavionix comes out with the certified tail beacon in a couple months I'll still bite the bullet and purchase it. The date on the legal document is June of this year. That didnt hinder certification of the wing mounted beacon before OSH.

I agree, the FAA shouldn't care about patent issues. The whole Navworks thing was due to certification issues. Worse case, I would install the tail beacon, and further support from Uavionix may be limited or non existent if they lost the lawsuit.
 
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.
 
bflynn said:
They want more money. They think that a jury will clearly see how they are injured and give them everything.

I'm not sure a jury trial is a good idea for them. The actual advancement art of the patent is very thin. I think there's a risk for a jury to nullify the patent and find for Uavionix.
Click to expand...

Do you know if Garmin had to file in Montana because that’s where Uavionix is? Could they have brought suit in Oregon where they are?
 
Ah, you caught me reposting. I don't know that Garmin had to file in Montana, but it is the safest place to ensure there isn't a fight over jurisdiction. There is no question that Uavionix does business in Colorado

luvflyin said:
But Garmin is demanding a Jury trial. Why?
Click to expand...

They want more money. They think that a jury will clearly see how they are injured and give them everything.

I'm not sure a jury trial is a good idea for them. The actual advancement art of the patent is very thin. I think there's a risk for a jury to nullify the patent and find for Uavionix. After all, Garmin has been making TCAS systems for a long time and those interrogate Mode C transponders as a matter of course. It's hardly innovative to pick up what you do on avionics system T and copy it to avionics system A.
 
bflynn said:
Ah, you caught me reposting. I don't know that Garmin had to file in Montana, but it is the safest place to ensure there isn't a fight over jurisdiction. There is no question that Uavionix does business in Colorado



They want more money. They think that a jury will clearly see how they are injured and give them everything.

I'm not sure a jury trial is a good idea for them. The actual advancement art of the patent is very thin. I think there's a risk for a jury to nullify the patent and find for Uavionix. After all, Garmin has been making TCAS systems for a long time and those interrogate Mode C transponders as a matter of course. It's hardly innovative to pick up what you do on avionics system T and copy it to avionics system A.
Click to expand...

If it’s like that, that the patent is ‘thin,’ then they may figure a Judge will rule in favor of Uavionix. So they say let’s roll the dice and see what we might be able to talk a Jury into.
 
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?
 
luvflyin said:
If it’s like that, that the patent is ‘thin,’ then they may figure a Judge will rule in favor of Uavionix. So they say let’s roll the dice and see what we might be able to talk a Jury into.
Click to expand...
This^^^^
A person is smart. Juries are stupid.
 
bflynn said:
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, but determining the state of the art 10 years later is difficult. It is an interesting technique, but to me it seems like a trivial thing to claim a patent on listening to other signals being broadcast. There is plenty of literature talking about ATC using both Mode S and Mode C and about ADSB-in using Mode C.

One thing I see that may not work in Garmin’s favor is that their patent date is Dec 2009, but early in 2009 they were already talking up the ease of the 330 ES transponder. They released a slew of new designs in mid-late 2009 and may have jumped the gun on using the technique before filing the patent. Public disclosure will usually invalidate a patent.
Click to expand...
I miss the good old days: you had to demonstrate a working model of your widget/system/etc. Today you can get a patent on what is possible. Even if it isn't really. And patents can take from 18 months to forever to be issued, and they can be withdrawn, and they can be amended, so it's sometimes difficult to determine an actual filing date. Of course, anyone showing proof of prior art can make a patent disappear in a flash.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I miss the good old days: you had to demonstrate a working model of your widget/system/etc. Today you can get a patent on what is possible. Even if it isn't really. And patents can take from 18 months to forever to be issued, and they can be withdrawn, and they can be amended, so it's sometimes difficult to determine an actual filing date. Of course, anyone showing proof of prior art can make a patent disappear in a flash.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. I can't even think of a Garmin product that does what this issue is about.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Why? They came up with something, and are attempting to preserve their IP. Now the courts will decide if that IP deserved protection.


Who do you consider the patent troll in this case?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Michael - nothing happens to the sold devices, other than people who installed them are left with an unsupported piece of hardware. Whatever damages are awarded would be owed from the loser to the winner (which I put 60/40 the winner would be Garmin).

Legal strategy - they're going after the weak fish first to establish precedent that the patent is appropriate.
 
I wonder (assume it does) effect the certified AND the experiential version of the SkyBeacon?
 
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.
 
bnt83 said:
Come to think of it, I think the GDL88 does it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
What you, or Tim Winters, or me think doesn’t matter. It’s the business of doing business. The court will sort it out.
 
Understand the playing field and the rules of the game matter to anyone who is interested. That I add my opinion onto it is because that's what I do. Without context of the patent, this appears to be an open and shut case, but a defense of patent infringement is that the patent never should have been granted in the first place. The context supplies a reason why the patent might be invalidated.
 
Stewartb said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's an atrocious system, until "losing party pays" becomes law of the land.
 
bflynn said:
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.
Click to expand...

What are some examples where an ‘idea’ has successfully been patented?
 
It's customary that if the defense prevails they're awarded legal fees. Well, according to my patent lawyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top