GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ITC , No. 16-2584 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., GARMIN USA, INC., GARMIN CORPORATION, Appellants v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee NAVICO INC., NAVICO HOLDING AS, Intervenors ______________________ 2016-2584 ______________________ Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-921. ______________________ Decided: June 13, 2017 ______________________ NICHOLAS P. GROOMBRIDGE, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellants. Also represented by JENNIFER H. WU, JENNIFER DIANE CIELUCH; DAVID J. BALL, JR., DAVID K. STARK, Washington, DC. 2 GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ITC MEGAN MICHELE VALENTINE, Office of General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DOMINIC L. BIANCHI, WAYNE W. HERRINGTON, SIDNEY A. ROSENZWEIG. KIRK T. BRADLEY, Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC, argued for intervenors. Also represented by MATTHEW S. STEVENS, CHRISTOPHER CHARLES ZIEGLER. ______________________ Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. REYNA, Circuit Judge. In one of three appeals from a Section 337 investigation, Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc., and Garmin Corporation (collectively, “Garmin”) appeal from a Modified Limited Exclusion Order (“Modified Order”) of the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) prohibiting entry into the United States of products and components of products infringing various claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840 (“’840 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,605,550 (“’550 patent”). Our decision today in a related case, Garmin International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 161572, reverses the Commission’s finding of validity and finds all of the patent claims referenced by the Modified Order invalid as obvious over the prior art. Because we have already reversed the Commission’s underlying decision, we dismiss this appeal as moot. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.