Patent No. 6,178,380 discloses a street identification for a navigation system map zoom feature. The vehicle location display provides information to a user regarding his or her current vehicle location on a map, even when the scale of the map is large. The vehicle location display includes a map scaler that adjusts the scale of the map in response to the input from the user.
Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Ford Motor Company
Case Name: Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Ford Motor Company
Docket Number: 2:13-cv-11382-PJD-MAR
Date Filed: 3/28/2013
Judge: Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
Status: Stayed; reassigned 01/07/2016
On March 28, 2013, Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Ford Motor Company
(“Defendant”) alleging that the Defendant infringed United States Patent Nos. 6,374,180, 6,178,380, and 6,029,111 (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”). In addition, Defendant counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid or that the Defendant has not infringed on the Patents-in-Suit. Patent No. 6,374,180 discloses a navigation system that searches for points of interest in a database. The user can locate a point of interest based on the character string that it enters. In short, this invention provides an improved method for points of interest searching.
Finally, Patent No. 6,029,111 discloses a vehicle navigation system and method using GPS velocities. The vehicle navigation system uses an electromagnetic wave positioning system and GPS velocity data for position propagation. Basically, it is more accurate, efficient, flexible, and cost-effective than previous vehicle navigation systems. This action, among many others, was transferred from Delaware to Michigan on March 28, 2013. On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint and a Motion to Consolidate Cases. The Defendant did not oppose consolidation, but it did oppose the Amended Complaint filing. The Plaintiff claims that it is in the court’s best interest to allow the amendment because it would save both judicial and party resources. Before the court could issue an order on the motions, however, Judge Duggan signed an order staying the case pursuant to the court’s August 12, 2013 order in case numbers 13-cv-11389 and 13-cv-11511, which stayed the cases pending the results of a re-examination notice filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office questioning patentability of the Patents-in-Suit. Judge Duggan signed the order on September 17, 2013.