Garmin 2008 Annual Report Download - page 53

31
in Encyclopaedia Britannica v. Magellan Navigation, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CA-787 (LY)(W.D. Tex). On
October 5, 2007, the defendants in that case filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the ’018 and
’437 patents and the parties await a hearing and/or the court’s ruling on that motion. On February 6, 2009, the court
entered a scheduling order enabling all defendants in these cases to file a consolidated Joint Motion for Summary
Judgment of Invalidity of the ’018 and ’437 patents and stayed all proceedings pending the court’s ruling on the
joint motion for summary judgment. Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of this
litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, liquidity or financial position, Garmin
International believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend these actions.
SP Technologies, LLC v. Garmin Ltd., Garmin International, Inc., TomTom, Inc., and Magellan Navigation,
Inc.
On June 5, 2008, SP Technologies, LLC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
6,784,873 (“the ’873 patent”). On July 7, 2008, SP Technologies, LLC filed an amended complaint alleging
infringement of the ’873 patent against additional defendants TomTom, Inc. and Magellan Navigation, Inc. Garmin
believes that it should not be found liable for infringement of the ’873 patent and additionally that the ’873 patent is
invalid. Garmin intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit
On August 18, 2008, Garmin filed its answer to the amended complaint along with a motion for dismissal
of SP Technologies, LLC’s claims of willful and inducement infringement of the ’873 patent. On October 16, 2008,
the court granted Garmin’s motion for partial dismissal, striking the willful and inducement infringement allegations
from the amended complaint.
On January 7, 2009, Garmin filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims asserting the ’873 patent is not
infringed, is invalid, and that the plaintiff committed inequitable conduct resulting in unenforceability of the ’873
patent. On February 2, 2009, codefendant TomTom filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Unenforceability of
the ’873 Patent Due to Inequitable Conduct. The parties await a hearing or the Court’s ruling on this summary
judgment motion.
Scott C. Harris and Memory Control Enterprise, LLC v. Dash Navigation, Inc., Garmin International, Inc.,
Lowrance Electronics, Inc., Magellan Navigation, Inc., Mio Technology USA, Navigon Inc., Netropa Corporation,
and Sony Electronics, Inc.
On September 4, 2008, Scott C. Harris and Memory Control Enterprise, LLC filed suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Garmin International, Inc., along with Dash Navigation,
Inc., Lowrance Electronics, Inc., Magellan Navigation, Inc., Mio Technology USA, Navigon Inc., Netropa
Corporation, and Sony Electronics, Inc. The complaint against Garmin International, Inc. alleges infringement of
U.S. Patent No. 6,892,136 (“the ’136 patent”). Garmin believes that it should not be found liable of infringement of
the ’136 patent and additionally that the ’136 patent is invalid. Garmin intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
From time to time Garmin is involved in other legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business.
We believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition and results of operations.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
No matters were submitted to a vote of shareholders of Garmin during the fourth fiscal quarter of 2008.
Executive Officers of the Registrant
Pursuant to General Instruction G(3) of Form 10-K and instruction 3 to paragraph (b) of Item 401 of
Regulation S-K, the following list is included as an unnumbered Item in Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K