On September 20, 2013, Navico, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma and Navico Holding AS of Norway (collectively, “Navico”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Raymarine, Inc. of Nashua, New Hampshire and Raymarine UK Ltd. of the United Kingdom (collectively, “Raymarine”) and In-Tech Electronics Ltd. of Hong Kong (“In-Tech”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain marine sonar imaging devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (the ‘840 patent) and 8,300,499 (the ‘499 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to sonar imaging devices.  In particular, the ‘840 patent relates to a sonar imaging device with a linear transducer to generate high quality images of the seafloor and other objects beneath a watercraft.  The ‘499 patent relates to a sonar imaging device using both a linear transducer and a conical transducer, which provides images based on data from both transducers.

In the complaint, Navico states that Raymarine and In-Tech import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents.  The complaint specifically refers to the Raymarine Dragonfly as an example allegedly infringing product.

Regarding domestic industry, Navico states that several models of its marine sonar devices with  DownScan sonar technology practice one or more of the asserted patents within the U.S.  Navico states it has spent millions of dollars in the U.S. to create, test, and support these devices for use by U.S. consumers.  In addition, Navico specifically refers to its facilities in Oklahoma and New Hampshire, and states that it has approximately 175 U.S.-based employees.

As to related litigation, Navico states that Navico, Inc. previously asserted the ‘840 and ‘499 patents against Raymarine, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  However, Navico states that on August 26, 2013, Navico, Inc. voluntarily dismissed that case and re-filed the complaint with Navico Holding AS as an additional plaintiff.  Navico states that it has not yet served the re-filed district court complaint on Raymarine, Inc.  Additionally, Navico states that Raymarine, Inc. has filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘840 patent, but has not sought review of the ‘499 patent.

With respect to potential remedy, Navico requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Raymarine and In-Tech, as well as their parents, subsidiaries, and other affiliates.