By Jody Coultas, J.D.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused to stay the U.S. International Trade Commission’s order barring the import of certain Garmin International Inc. commercial fishing radar products while it hears Garmin's patent infringement appeal. (Garmin International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, October 21, 2016, Stoll, K.).
Marine sonar manufacturers Navico, Inc., and Navico Holding AS ("Navico") filed suit against Garmin for infringing two patents by making and selling sonar based "fishfinders" and other marine-imaging devices that use Global Positioning Technology (GPS) systems. The ITC instituted an investigation on July 14, 2014 based on a complaint filed by Navico.
On December 1, 2015, the ITC found that Garmin violated Section 337 based on infringement of the asserted claims of the two patents-at-issue and issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against Garmin. The ITC found no violation with respect to a third patent. The order prohibited unlicensed entry of marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that are covered by one or more certain claim at issue.
Navico and Garmin appealed the ITC decision to the Federal Circuit. Garmin asked the Federal Circuit to stay enforcement of the ITC’s modified limited exclusion order. The ITC, Navico Holdings AS, and Navico, Inc. opposed the motion. Garmin also filed a motion requesting the ITC stay, pending appeal to the Federal Circuit, enforcement of the modified limited exclusion order.
The court may grant a stay pending appeal where: (1) the movant has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the movant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) issuance of the stay will not substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) the public interest favors a stay.
Garmin failed to establish the right to a stay pending appeal, according to the court. Therefore, the motion was denied.
The ITC also denied Garmin’s motion to stay enforcement of the limited exclusion order. Garmin failed to show that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its arguments that (1) the ITC failed to afford Garmin an opportunity for a hearing and presentation of all defenses; (2) the ITC lacked the jurisdiction to modify the original orders; and (3) the modified orders were impermissibly overbroad and create uncertainty as to what goods were excluded.
The case is No. 2016-2584.
Attorneys: Megan M. Valentine, Attorney Advisor for the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Companies: Garmin International, Inc.; Garmin USA, Inc.; Garmin Corporation; Navico Holding AS; and Navico, Inc.
MainStory: TopStory Patent FedCirNews
Interested in submitting an article?
Submit your information to us today!Learn More