01
Aug
By Eric Schweibenz
On July 25, 2011, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 17 (dated May 4, 2011) in Certain Components For Installation Of Marine Autopilots With GPS Or IMU  (Inv. No. 337-TA-738).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied Respondents Navico Holding AS, Navico UK, Ltd., and Navico, Inc.’s (“Navico”) motion for summary determination that certain claims of asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,596,976 (the ‘976 patent) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).  In support of the motion, Navico asserted that Complainant American GNC Corp.’s (“AGNC”) claims of infringement against Navico’s “marine autopilot systems [ ] are the same as, or insubstantially different from, systems sold by Navico and its relevant predecessors prior to the alleged invention of the ‘976 patent.”  In opposition, AGNC argued that since the filing of Navico’s motion, AGNC further supplemented its infringement contentions.  AGNC also noted that the deposition testimony cited in Navico’s motion was neither testimony from AGNC’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness nor based on Navico’s confidential business information subsequently produced in the investigation.  The Commission Investigative Staff joined AGNC in opposing the motion. 

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern denied Navico’s motion in view of genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether the accused autopilot systems are the same as, or insubstantially different from, systems used by Navico and its relevant predecessors prior to the alleged invention of the ‘976 patent.
Share