The public back and forth in the patent infringement case between Lowrance's parent company and Garmin continues.
Last week, Navico Holdings AS, parent company of Lowrance and other brands, released a statement touting a modified order issued Aug. 18 by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) that seemed to bolster its position in its long-standing patent infringement suit against Garmin International, Inc.
At issue is Navico's claims that Garmin's DownVü products infringed upon patented technology Navico uses in its DownScan Imaging. The ITC issued an order last December concluding that first generation Garmin DownVü scanning sonar products were too similar to at least one patented aspect of Navico DownScan technology. The order reversed a previous ITC ruling that Garmin's DownVü products didn't infringe on Navico patents.
As a result, the ITC called on Garmin to halt the importation, sale, advertising, and aiding or assisting distributors or retailers in selling all its infringing DownVü products, including the echo, echoMAP and GPSMAP products with their respective transducers.
Today, Garmin fired back with a statement that claims the latest order, dated Aug. 18, 2016, "did not address Garmin’s new tilted DownVü scanning sonar transducer design – which Garmin strongly asserts does not infringe – that has been shipping since last December when the previous decision was made by the ITC.
"The status of Garmin’s new tilted transducer design relative to any of Navico’s patents is still a matter pending before the courts and government agencies, and Navico has never accused Garmin’s new tilted design of infringement before the ITC."
In addition to its statement, Garmin has filed a motion in the ITC case requesting a stay of the recent modified order.
In a letter accompanying the motion dated Aug. 25 addressed to Irving A. Williamson, chairman of the USITC, Garmin attorney Nicholas Groombridge wrote, "Navico's position that Garmin's tilted redesign infringes the Navico patents confirms the propriety of a stay of the Modified Orders pending Garmin's appeal. If indeed the Commission has decided the question of whether Garmin's tilted redesign infringes—an issue that Navico has repeatedly asked courts or tribunals not to consider then such determination is legal error because the Commission did not afford Garmin an opportunity for a hearing and presentation of all defenses as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c). ... Further, the burden is not on Garmin to seek review of its tilted redesign; the fact that Garmin did not seek an advisory opinion (and instead, Navico did) does not mean that Garmin's tilted redesign is "deemed to infringe Navico's patents."
