Garmin v uAvionix

[swatson999]

I see over on VAF that Garmin is suing uAvionix for patent infringement. Given that the ADS-B-472 box is made by uAvionix, this may be a concern should the suit result in the company going out of business.

Likely a long way off, but I hope Dynon has a way to continue support for 3rd-party products like this in the event the supplier goes TU.

 

[GalinHdz]

The lawsuit concerns the uAvinoix 978UAT OUT device(s) while the ADSB-472 is an ADS-B IN device. GARMIN does not have an exclusive patent on ADSB-IN devices. Apples and oranges so I personally doubt it will have a significant impact on the ADSB-472.

 

[swatson999]

The lawsuit concerns the uAvinoix 978UAT OUT device(s) while the ADSB-472 is an ADS-B IN device. GARMIN does not have an exclusive patent on ADSB-IN devices. Apples and oranges so I personally doubt it will have a significant impact on the ADSB-472.

I know that...that's why I said "should the suit result in the company going out of business" (which would imply they wouldn't be able to support upgrades/fixes to ANY of their boxes, including the 472).

I thought that was apparent from what I wrote...

 

[vlittle]

Without commenting on the merits of the case, I don't think it's wise for Garmin to use the courts to limit competition. The E-AB market is a pretty tight community and if Garmin is seen as a bully, it could actually hurt their sales in this segment. After all, it has been this community that has advanced GA technology the most in the last dozen years, to Garmin's benefit.

All the people on forums (including this one) provide the creative spark to the industry and to see individual vendors exploit this creative energy for their own benefit is galling. Personally, many of own designs have been copied by others without compensation or recognition... and I'm OK with that because I feel like giving back to the community.

Vern

 

[jakej]

I’d suggest ‘we’ let this subject go its course through the impending legal action - as mentioned on another forum - “Let's take the lawsuit discussion elsewhere on the web.“

 

[swatson999]

I’d suggest ‘we’ let this subject go its course through the impending legal action - as mentioned on another forum -   “Let's take the lawsuit discussion elsewhere on the web.“

Please please please don't let this forum go down the ultra-risk-averse path of VAF. I love VAF, but sometimes they squelch discussions that are quite useful.

Dynon currently markets a significant capability that is based on a vendor's technology, and that vendor now finds itself in what could be a costly and perhaps company-ending lawsuit. I think knowing Dynon's commitment to continuing to support this product *no matter the fate of their vendor* is important. YMMV.

 

[Raymo]

I see your point Steve but the law suit is based on ADS-B OUT and how the sender gets its signal from the transponder. Dynon doesn't use any uAvionics tech for their OUT solution(s).

Also, it is UAT (978) out to which the suit pertains. None of this has anything to do with Dynon, IMO.

 

[swatson999]

I see your point Steve but the law suit is based on ADS-B OUT and how the sender gets its signal from the transponder. Dynon doesn't use any uAvionics tech for their OUT solution(s).

Also, it is UAT (978) out to which the suit pertains. None of this has anything to do with Dynon, IMO.

you're completely missing the point.

Dynon buys its ADS-B *IN* solution (the 472 box) ***from uAvionix***. If uAvionix goes out of business (as a result of losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit by Garmin), what happens to support for those 472 ADSB-IN boxes?

 

[RV8JD]

uAvionix Responds to Garmin's Lawsuit

uAvionix Responds to Garmin's Lawsuit

https://uavionix.com/news/uavionix-statement-on-garmin-lawsuit/

"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."

 

[Dynon]

If you're on this forum, you've probably been following us long enough to know that we have a long track record of supporting the products that we sell and support. As was pointed out in this thread, although we use uAvionix parts in our SV-ADSB-472, it is on the ADS-B "In" side, not the "Out" side which is the subject of the litigation. Also remember that as a manufacturer of sophisticated avionics, we source literally thousands of electronic components across our products. A part of our routine sustaining engineering efforts, we need to deal with components that become unavailable for a variety of reasons.