Looks like Garmin is sueing Uavionix

luvflyin said:
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
Click to expand...

Maybe. But its more complicated than you might think. You may be thinking that Garmin needs a final judgment in order to prevent uAvionix from selling any more. Not so. And in fact, there is likely no way they would get a final judgment under any circumstances before 2020 regardless of which district the matter is filed in. Relatively simple cases in federal court typically aren't resolved in less than 2 years. (I had one case where the federal district court sat on a summary judgment for over a year, asked me to withdraw it and re-file it, sat on it for over year, then granted the motion only in part, after which we had a four day bench trial, following which the court sat on it again for over a year before issuing a ruling.) Complex patent cases simply cannot move that fast no matter what. So, they cannot really have an expectation that the case will be wrapped up by 2020. But for Garmin, all is not lost.

In their complaint, they asked for both a preliminary and a permanent injunction. If they get a preliminary injunction, then they can run out the clock by keeping it in place through 2020 without having to go to trial and possibly lose. Also, the mere threat of the hammer of excessive litigation fees for the long haul, followed by a possible adverse judgment based on the number of units sold over time could well force uAvionix to the bargaining table to either a) quit selling, or b) agreeing to pay a licensing agreement on a per unit basis. Neither of which depends on having a trial date before 2020. If they wanted this resolved quickly, they would have been satisfied with a bench trial. As noted above, they asked for a jury trial. Why is that?
 
Thanks for that perspective PPC. Makes perfect sense. The 900 pound gorilla could certainly put the squeeze on the little fellow. I doubt that uAvionix has enough mass to sustain themselves through something like this. Your perspective gives me further thought that Garmin is being a bully. Wish I could trade out my 430 W and 345 for an avidyne and an NGT9000 for even money.
 
MBDiagMan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not really.

If they copied the code, they'd be guilty of copyright as well as patent infringement. If they write their own code to perform the same function, then it's just patent infringement. IF, that is, they are actually infringing the patent, AND the patent stands up as enforceable. Think MPEG-2 and GIF - remember those patent lawsuits? Just my non-attorney opinion, and it's worth every penny you paid for it.
 
Patents need to go back to the concept of demonstrated implementation. IOW, nobody should get a patent because they know that a certain invention or process will be possible in the future; they must demonstrate it now.
 
Well that sucks! I wonder what Garmin feels a fair royalty would be?
 
timwinters said:
I hate Garmin more every day.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I'll let others speak for me.

murphey said:
800 pound gorilla takes no prisoners.
Click to expand...

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

luvflyin said:
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...

tawood said:
This^^^^
A person is smart. Juries are stupid.
Click to expand...
 
MBDiagMan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Any comments on why you think the Lynx is the better option? We have narrowed down our choice to the Garmin 345 and the Lynx.
chemgeek said:
. . .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.
Click to expand...
Are you going to display either traffics or weather on a panel GPS or just on the Lynx?

We just meet yesterday to go over options and decided the Uavionix was a bit too risky to go with. This was before I read about the lawsuit. It is too bad - I think the competition is good.
 
idahoflier said:
Well that sucks! I wonder what Garmin feels a fair royalty would be?
Click to expand...
200%

Plus a 300% flat fee for repair.

And that they waited until all the certifications were in hand, or nearly so, is a complete azzhole move. Pricks.

I have purchased my last Garmin product unless there is absolutely no other option. And, unfortunately for us all, that's what they're trying to achieve.
 
Last edited:
The NGT9000 is on sale right now for virtually the same price as the 345. Depending on what else is in the panel, and the usage of the aircraft, it can be a better choice. I went through the NGT9000 features a few weeks ago as compared to the 345 and found an area where the 345 is superior, but I can’t remember what it is. Don’t get me wrong, the 345 is a nice, feature rich box. I just wish I had looked at the L3 more closely. If the prices had been the same at the time maybe I would have.

Edit: I think what I gigged the L3 on was not having easy to use buttons for entering a sqwauk. I think it is all touch screen. I really like the push button sqwauk entry on the 345 and other Garmin transponders. Just punch it in without hittin enter or anything. No twisting knobs. No big deal I suppose. I just find it convenient.
 
Last edited:
Kenny Phillips said:
Patents need to go back to the concept of demonstrated implementation. IOW, nobody should get a patent because they know that a certain invention or process will be possible in the future; they must demonstrate it now.
Click to expand...

I agree, but if you want to look into a fascinating patent case, research the Selden patent. He patented the automobile without ever producing a workable, physical automobile. I did a research paper on it in college and everyone that read it was fascinated including the professor. Got an A+.
 
timwinters said:
I'll let others speak for me.
Click to expand...
RyanShort1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
We will see what happens. I've no dog in this fight. It seems Garmin is "bad" in this thread solely because they are successful. Like I said earlier in the thread, granting a patent allows an inventor a monopoly- it's in the constitution. That means they can charge what they want for that particular technology. You don't like Garmin? Go with Avidyne, Lynx, Stratus, Bendix King, or Trig.

As for the merits of the case, none of us here have enough knowledge to claim obviousness, prior art or other details. Any company is going to maximize its profit within the law.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the larger company has deeper pockets for R&D, legal research, and can afford the better lawyers. Patents aren't cheap anymore; beyond the basic filing fee there are attorney fees and patent searches. Those go north of $20k just in the USA; patents are also filed in other countries. By the time one files in the EU and some of the countries with with markets able to purchase an item (Canada, Japan, Korea, India, etc) it goes north of $100k when the attorneys are included. All of them need to be filed within a year of the first one- you have a year from first public disclosure (such as a patent application) to file a patent. I doubt Garmin would have dumped that kind of money if their attorneys felt a patent couldn't be upheld. I'm pretty sure they are large enough to have employed corporate attorneys who get paid either way.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Hmmmm....so they got's nothing to lose by attempting a scare suit.o_O
Click to expand...
Nope. But if that's all they got, and the patent doesn't stand up, they probably won't win either.

Like it or not, that's the legal system we have.
 
We have narrowed down our choice to the Garmin 345 and the Lynx.
Click to expand...

That's where I was. The install costs were comparable. Pluses of the 345 is good GNS430 integration, minuses are it's not redundant and Garmin only plays with Garmin tablet products for non panel display. There are also traffic display limitations on the GNS430. The Lynx will play with non Garmin EFB apps, and has independent displays and redundant GPS position reporting.

Are you going to display either traffics or weather on a panel GPS or just on the Lynx?
Click to expand...

I'll use the Lynx as the primary display. Weather can be also transmitted to my larger EFB app screen using the wifi adapter. The lynx screen isn't much smaller than the GNS430 screen and it is much higher resolution. In split screen mode it can do both traffic and wx at the same time as well as call up info pages (TAF, METAR, etc.) You can download an Android app from Google Play to play with a Lynx simulator.
 
chemgeek said:
Pluses of the 345 is good GNS430 integration, minuses are it's not redundant and Garmin only plays with Garmin tablet products for non panel display. There are also traffic display limitations on the GNS430. The Lynx will play with non Garmin EFB apps, and has independent displays and redundant GPS position reporting
Click to expand...
Chem - I was under the impression that the Garmin 345 ADS-B in would work with ForeFlight. Is this not correct? I found this info on ForeFlights web site. I will also contact them to make sure before we decide.
7C26FF97-2895-4954-8108-8FBA04CD96DB.png
 
chemgeek said:
That's where I was. The install costs were comparable. Pluses of the 345 is good GNS430 integration, minuses are it's not redundant and Garmin only plays with Garmin tablet products for non panel display. There are also traffic display limitations on the GNS430. The Lynx will play with non Garmin EFB apps, and has independent displays and redundant GPS position reporting.



I'll use the Lynx as the primary display. Weather can be also transmitted to my larger EFB app screen using the wifi adapter. The lynx screen isn't much smaller than the GNS430 screen and it is much higher resolution. In split screen mode it can do both traffic and wx at the same time as well as call up info pages (TAF, METAR, etc.) You can download an Android app from Google Play to play with a Lynx simulator.
Click to expand...

Part of the above is not true. I have a GTX345 and a 430W. It plays well with Foreflight. I expect it will also Bluetooth to Wing X. I also find it hard to believe that there are traffic limitations on the 430. That might be the case if you don’t have the latest 430 firmware revision. Mine was updated, which is a bench operation at the time of my 345 installation.
 
WannFly said:
Whatever the lose, if they lose , they can eat it. Not sure if uavoinics can eat a long drawn litigation
Click to expand...

Yes and that is the reality of it. The gorilla only has to walk into the room next to the puppy dog. As I said before, uAvionix probably doesn’t have the mass to withstand this attack.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
As for the merits of the case, none of us here have enough knowledge to claim obviousness, prior art or other details. Any company is going to maximize its profit within the law.
Click to expand...

Of course nobody knows what is going to happen, we are dealing with the law. The future is unknown and having the law on your side does not mean your opponent is going to agree.

For my part, I have a better than average understanding of this tech and the law. Not perfect, but enough to recognize that Garmin is ahead. I think it’s clear the patent was infringed, but I am not convinced the patent will be upheld. So, there is a slow drama playing out and we will see what happens down the road.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Part of the above is not true. I have a GTX345 and a 430W. It plays well with Foreflight. I expect it will also Bluetooth to Wing X. I also find it hard to believe that there are traffic limitations on the 430. That might be the case if you don’t have the latest 430 firmware revision. Mine was updated, which is a bench operation at the time of my 345 installation.
Click to expand...

The GTX345 can only display 8 targets on the GNS series navigators. Not so for the GTN series. Good to know it works with some non-Garmin software.
 
Turns out the Lynx will also take the TCAS antennas you have for your Skywatch system and give you the same TCAS system integrated into your transponder. You can get rid of the Skywatch box instead of paying the flat rate repair of $6000 to the company in Florida that owns the rights to Skywatch now.

Interesting fact, it’s actually $6000 for an attempted repair, not a guaranteed repair. They actually said I had to pay $6000 for the chance they might be able to fix it and they don’t warrant the work.
 
I'm still gonna attempt to purchase the skybeacon, if it falls through, I'll get a all in one box from a non-garmin vendor, even if the as-installed costs are analogous with the garmin offerings. I'm done with Garmin. This rent-seeking behavior may be legal, but I don't have to patronize it. More to life than money and what have you.
 
Since 2012, there has been an administrative appeals process for challenging patents. According to this site, it invalidates about 40% of the patents it issues decisions on, which is similar to the record for court cases, but significantly less expensive.
 
I have no problem with profit and free enterprise. In fact I am full in favor of it. I spent the prime of my career in a small, innovative software company. We did things legally and ethically. That’s why I was comfortable there and fit in well. As things changed, and after the owner sold the company, I worked a few years for one of the largest companies in the world, and it was a den of snakes. Had to get out of there. Then I worked for another large company that was pretty straight dealing and won ethic business awards, for what they were worth.

So, I am not without experience watching such things. I don’t have an insiders view into the business practices of Garmin and UAvionix though. It may very well be completely different from how it looks from the outside in, but I suspect the smell of a rat in both camps. It might very well be that Garmin is completely within their legal rights, driven by greed and can’t stand anyone else moving in on their overpriced monopoly. It also could be that uAvionix is nothing but a bunch of tech thieves. Even after this all plays out we on the outside, may not know what really happened.
 
Perhaps a repeat, sorry, but:
"uAvionix Statement on Garmin Lawsuit
On June 19, 2018 Garmin International Inc. and Garmin USA Inc. sued uAvionix for patent infringement. Garmin alleges the uAvionix echoUAT and skyBeacon’s method of obtaining an installed transponder’s Mode 3/A code and altitude infringes their U.S. Patent No. 8,102,301 (“the 301 Patent”).

We do not infringe the 301 Patent. uAvionix has our own patent-pending method for using Mode 3/A and altitude information that differs from the method in the 301 Patent. We invite you to see for yourself.

Ultimately the court and industry will decide whether we are innovators or infringers.

We are disappointed and frustrated we have to go through the expense, distraction, and effort of defending ourselves, but also recognize that disruptive products often attract unwanted attention from incumbents.

We won’t be able to comment on the proceedings, and it will likely take some time to resolve. We just want the world to know that we take Intellectual Property rights seriously. We are innovators with integrity, and we are defending that integrity. As pilots, we will fight hard and stand our ground to deliver groundbreaking and innovative products to this market.

We also want to make a clear statement that this suit in no way impacts our ability to certify and ship any of our products – including skyBeacon and tailBeacon.

Thank you for your support and confidence.

The uAvionix Team

P.S. Our legal team deleted our usual levity from this statement."
 
One thing is for certain. Lots of folks are waiting to see what shakes out in the ADSB world, and I think were hoping for the Navworx gismo. I strongly suspect a lot of folks are going to get frozen out of controlled airspace January 1, 2020.
 
A review of the docket indicates that Garmin hasn't yet actually filed a motion for preliminary injunction, so right now there's not even a pending formal request to make Uavionix stop selling while the lawsuit is pending. And to those talking about who can afford quality lawyers, Garmin's represented by a small (but veru successful) IP boutique based out of Kansas City, and Uavionix is represented by a leading national IP firm (Finnegan), so there isn't exactly an imbalance in counsel.
 
Ravioli said:
Perhaps a repeat, sorry, but:
"uAvionix Statement on Garmin Lawsuit
On June 19, 2018 Garmin International Inc. and Garmin USA Inc. sued uAvionix for patent infringement. Garmin alleges the uAvionix echoUAT and skyBeacon’s method of obtaining an installed transponder’s Mode 3/A code and altitude infringes their U.S. Patent No. 8,102,301 (“the 301 Patent”).

We do not infringe the 301 Patent. uAvionix has our own patent-pending method for using Mode 3/A and altitude information that differs from the method in the 301 Patent. We invite you to see for yourself.

Ultimately the court and industry will decide whether we are innovators or infringers.

We are disappointed and frustrated we have to go through the expense, distraction, and effort of defending ourselves, but also recognize that disruptive products often attract unwanted attention from incumbents.

We won’t be able to comment on the proceedings, and it will likely take some time to resolve. We just want the world to know that we take Intellectual Property rights seriously. We are innovators with integrity, and we are defending that integrity. As pilots, we will fight hard and stand our ground to deliver groundbreaking and innovative products to this market.

We also want to make a clear statement that this suit in no way impacts our ability to certify and ship any of our products – including skyBeacon and tailBeacon.

Thank you for your support and confidence.

The uAvionix Team

P.S. Our legal team deleted our usual levity from this statement."
Click to expand...
Ravioli said:
Perhaps a repeat, sorry, but:
"uAvionix Statement on Garmin Lawsuit
On June 19, 2018 Garmin International Inc. and Garmin USA Inc. sued uAvionix for patent infringement. Garmin alleges the uAvionix echoUAT and skyBeacon’s method of obtaining an installed transponder’s Mode 3/A code and altitude infringes their U.S. Patent No. 8,102,301 (“the 301 Patent”).

We do not infringe the 301 Patent. uAvionix has our own patent-pending method for using Mode 3/A and altitude information that differs from the method in the 301 Patent. We invite you to see for yourself.

Ultimately the court and industry will decide whether we are innovators or infringers.

We are disappointed and frustrated we have to go through the expense, distraction, and effort of defending ourselves, but also recognize that disruptive products often attract unwanted attention from incumbents.

We won’t be able to comment on the proceedings, and it will likely take some time to resolve. We just want the world to know that we take Intellectual Property rights seriously. We are innovators with integrity, and we are defending that integrity. As pilots, we will fight hard and stand our ground to deliver groundbreaking and innovative products to this market.

We also want to make a clear statement that this suit in no way impacts our ability to certify and ship any of our products – including skyBeacon and tailBeacon.

Thank you for your support and confidence.

The uAvionix Team

P.S. Our legal team deleted our usual levity from this statement."
Click to expand...
Except for the PS, that's the response every company uses in a press release and their annual report.
 
I didn't read every post here, so if what I say now is redundant, forgive me.

I spent many years in the telecommunications world. Specifically the RF section. I think the real question is whether Garmin can stop anyone from receiving an over the air transmission that is broadcast. The transponder does just that, broadcast its information. FCC has regs about broadcast signals. Usually, the only option for information protection is if they used encryption. Once the info is broadcast, its public domain. The skybeacon and tailbeacon picks up the transponder broadcast transmission. I think Garmin would have an uphill battle claiming ownership of that signal.

So, If I were the defendant in this case, I would definitely challenge the complaint using the broadcast signal rules. There is a difference in broadcast signals and say, wireless as in blue tooth.
 
Huey Segura Jr said:
I spent many years in the telecommunications world. Specifically the RF section. I think the real question is whether Garmin can stop anyone from receiving an over the air transmission that is broadcast. The transponder does just that, broadcast its information. FCC has regs about broadcast signals. Usually, the only option for information protection is if they used encryption. Once the info is broadcast, its public domain. The skybeacon and tailbeacon picks up the transponder broadcast transmission. I think Garmin would have an uphill battle claiming ownership of that signal.

So, If I were the defendant in this case, I would definitely challenge the complaint using the broadcast signal rules. There is a difference in broadcast signals and say, wireless as in blue tooth.
Click to expand...
You're correct, of course -- at least for now. Nothing prevents anyone from receiving transponder signals. Of course it's been done before; remember the unencrypted CDMA cell phone frequencies that were, and probably still are, "illegal" to listen to? But Garmin's patent doesn't cover the transponder signals, or receiving them. It covers receiving and then using the transponder signal to auto-configure certain things in the ADS-B broadcast (like the squawk code) without needing to physically connect to the transponder or the flight crew setting them manually.
 
It looks like uAvionix pending patent is discriminating between an induced signal like over a network vs an OTA received signal. Garmin's patent looks pretty broad as it doesn't describe the mode of signal reception. Perhaps this will come down to whether or not uAvionix is issued a patent?
 
MBDiagMan said:
But who has a bigger war chest for paying that legal fee?
Click to expand...
If they follow the Microsoft method, Garmin will buy uAvionix, and that device will be labeled "Garmin" and cost too much.
 
Rather than making a course correction and turn the tanker, Garmin has decided to block the harbor. To hell with the consumer and aviation safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top