InfoGation Corp. v. American Honda Motor Co. — Dismissed With Prejudice After 118 Days
InfoGation Corporation asserted four GPS navigation patents against Honda and Acura in-vehicle navigation systems spanning virtually the entire Honda passenger lineup. The parties resolved their dispute privately and secured a joint dismissal with prejudice in 118 days — suggesting a confidential settlement was reached before any substantive merits ruling.
Four GPS Navigation Patents, One Honda Lineup, One Rapid Resolution
On May 8, 2024, InfoGation Corporation filed suit against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00346), presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. InfoGation asserted four U.S. patents — US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, and US8898003B1 — all directed to GPS navigation system technology. The accused products encompassed Honda’s and Acura’s factory-installed navigation systems across virtually every major passenger vehicle model, including the Accord, Civic, CR-V, Pilot, Odyssey, Ridgeline, and the full Acura sedan and SUV lineup.
The case closed on September 3, 2024 — just 118 days after filing — when Judge Gilstrap granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The court’s order confirmed that the parties had ‘resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Honda,’ with all claims dismissed with prejudice and each side bearing its own costs. A dismissal with prejudice means InfoGation is permanently barred from re-asserting these four patents against Honda on the same claims, making this a definitive resolution for Honda’s exposure on the accused navigation systems.
The 118-day resolution timeline is notably swift for Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, where cases routinely extend well beyond a year. The joint motion language — describing a resolution of ‘Plaintiff’s claims for relief’ — is consistent with a confidential licensing agreement or lump-sum settlement, though the specific financial terms are not disclosed in the public record. The each-party-bears-own-costs provision is a standard feature of negotiated settlements and does not signal a clear winner or loser from the docket alone.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 118 days
118 days — faster than the Eastern District of Texas median for patent cases reaching dismissal
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any re-filing on these patents against Honda
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. InfoGation cannot re-file suit against Honda asserting the same four GPS navigation patents on the same claims. The joint nature of the motion — filed by both parties — indicates mutual agreement rather than a unilateral abandonment, strongly suggesting a negotiated resolution underpins the dismissal.
Res judicata appliesInfoGation forecloses future claims against Honda, likely in exchange for consideration
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, InfoGation surrendered the right to re-assert these four patents against Honda. This is a significant concession for a patent licensor and is commercially inconsistent with a zero-value outcome. The public record does not disclose financial terms, but the structure of the joint motion is consistent with a confidential licensing payment or settlement sum having been exchanged before the order was filed.
Likely confidential settlementHonda secures permanent closure on four GPS navigation patent claims
American Honda Motor Co. obtained a dismissal with prejudice across all four asserted patents, extinguishing InfoGation’s ability to re-litigate these specific infringement claims. The each-party-bears-own-costs provision avoids any fee-shifting exposure. Honda’s navigation systems — covering the full Honda and Acura passenger lineup — are shielded from further claims by InfoGation on these patent families in the U.S. district courts.
Full claim closure for HondaRapid resolution suggests InfoGation holds credible GPS navigation IP leverage
The speed of resolution — 118 days — suggests Honda assessed the asserted patents as presenting real infringement risk rather than pursuing a prolonged invalidity defense. For other automakers with factory-installed GPS navigation systems, InfoGation’s four-patent portfolio remains a live enforcement risk. Companies yet to receive demand letters or complaints should consider proactive FTO analysis against these patent families, particularly given the breadth of the accused product categories.
Portfolio enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InfoGation, Corp. | Company | GPS navigation technology licensor — holder of US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, and US8898003B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | American Honda Motor Co., Inc. | Company | American Honda Motor Co., Inc. — U.S. subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., manufacturer of Honda and Acura vehiclesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for InfoGation, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing InfoGation, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the joint motion’s own framing — that the parties ‘have resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief’ — without independently characterising the nature of that resolution. The with-prejudice standard bars InfoGation from re-litigating these infringement claims against Honda, but imposes no findings of validity, invalidity, infringement, or non-infringement. The denial of all pending relief as moot confirms no substantive rulings were issued, preserving both parties’ public positions on the merits entirely.
US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, US8898003B1 — GPS Navigation System Patents
The four asserted patents — US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, and US8898003B1 — collectively cover GPS navigation system technology for consumer applications, with application dates ranging from the late 1990s (US09/227331) through the early 2010s (US13/850669). This generational spread suggests a prosecution strategy designed to extend GPS navigation claim coverage as in-vehicle navigation systems matured from discrete hardware units to fully integrated infotainment platforms.
For the automotive sector, this portfolio is strategically significant because the accused products include every major Honda and Acura passenger vehicle model — spanning entry-level and luxury trims alike. The breadth of accused products implies the asserted claims are not narrowly directed to a single implementation but instead cover navigation system architecture at a level of abstraction applicable across hardware generations. Any OEM sourcing factory-installed GPS navigation systems from shared Tier-1 suppliers faces potential portfolio exposure similar to Honda’s.
Should your navigation platform be cleared against InfoGation’s GPS patent portfolio?
Any automaker, Tier-1 supplier, or connected-car platform provider offering factory-installed GPS navigation systems should treat these four patents as active enforcement risks. InfoGation secured a with-prejudice dismissal from Honda — one of the world’s largest automakers — in under four months, which is consistent with a licensing resolution and signals that the portfolio withstood initial legal scrutiny. Product and IP teams working on navigation system integration, route guidance software, or map display interfaces should prioritise FTO clearance against these patent families before product launch or platform updates.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product features against the specific independent claims of US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, and US8898003B1 in a structured workflow. Eureka surfaces prosecution history, cited prior art, and claim language analysis to identify design-around opportunities or invalidity arguments — allowing commercial teams to assess licensing risk before receiving a demand letter rather than after.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8406994B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar GPS Navigation Patent Infringement Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving GPS navigation system patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas against automotive OEMs and navigation technology suppliers.
What this case signals for the automotive GPS navigation IP landscape
InfoGation’s rapid, with-prejudice settlement against Honda suggests credible GPS navigation patent leverage across the automotive sector.
Eastern District of Texas remains the preferred venue for automotive navigation IP
InfoGation’s choice of Judge Gilstrap’s docket in E.D. Tex. is a deliberate venue decision. The court’s efficient case management and plaintiff-favorable reputation in patent cases creates settlement pressure on defendants early in the litigation lifecycle, consistent with the 118-day resolution seen here.
With-prejudice joint dismissals signal settlement, not case weakness
A joint motion to dismiss with prejudice in a patent case is procedurally distinct from a unilateral voluntary dismissal. Its use here, combined with the mutual language of claim resolution, is the standard mechanism for documenting a private settlement on the court docket without disclosing financial terms. IP teams should not read this as a plaintiff concession.
InfoGation v American — key questions answered
InfoGation Corporation filed a patent infringement suit against American Honda Motor Co. on May 8, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four GPS navigation patents against Honda and Acura in-vehicle navigation systems. The parties resolved their dispute privately and jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice on September 3, 2024 — 118 days after filing. Each party bears its own costs.
InfoGation asserted four patents: US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, and US8898003B1. All relate to GPS navigation system technology. The application dates span from the late 1990s through the early 2010s, suggesting a multi-generational prosecution strategy covering evolving in-vehicle navigation implementations.
Not necessarily. A with-prejudice dismissal entered on a joint motion typically reflects a negotiated settlement rather than a merits victory for either party. It prevents the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims, but the court issues no findings on infringement or validity. In this case, the joint motion language — describing a resolution of ‘Plaintiff’s claims for relief’ — is consistent with a confidential licensing payment.
The accused products included GPS navigation systems installed across virtually the entire Honda and Acura passenger lineup: Honda Accord, Accord Hybrid, Civic, Civic Type R, CR-V, CR-V Hybrid, HR-V, Odyssey, Passport, Pilot, and Ridgeline; and Acura Integra, TLX, MDX, RDX, NSX, ILX, RLX, and CDX, among others, in all trims and configurations.
The public record of this specific case does not identify other pending or resolved InfoGation suits, and no findings on that question are contained in this docket. However, the breadth of the asserted patent portfolio and the speed of the Honda resolution are consistent with a serial licensing campaign. IP professionals should search court dockets and the PatSnap litigation database for InfoGation Corporation to identify parallel enforcement activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.