InfoGation Corp. v. Denso Ten Limited — Dismissed Without Prejudice in 161 Days
Navigation patent licensor InfoGation Corp. asserted two patents covering artistic map navigation and mobile navigation systems against automotive electronics supplier Denso Ten Limited in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal without prejudice in under six months, with each side bearing its own costs.
Navigation IP assertion against automotive electronics supplier ends early
InfoGation Corp., a patent assertion entity holding navigation-related IP, filed suit against Denso Ten Limited on 1 May 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint alleged infringement of US6292743B1, covering a method and apparatus for navigating on artistic maps, and US10107628B2, directed at a mobile navigation system. Denso Ten is a Japanese automotive electronics manufacturer with a substantial product portfolio in in-vehicle navigation and infotainment systems.
The case closed on 9 October 2024 via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the stipulation and dismissed all claims without prejudice. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, InfoGation retains the legal right to refile these claims against Denso Ten in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any tolling considerations. Each party was ordered to bear its own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, suggesting no financial settlement was memorialised in the public record.
A resolution in 161 days is notably swift for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, where cases routinely extend well beyond a year through claim construction and trial. The speed of resolution and the without-prejudice structure suggest the parties may have reached a private agreement or licensing arrangement outside the court record, though this cannot be confirmed from publicly available filings. What remains unknown is whether any royalty or cross-licensing terms accompanied the dismissal, and whether InfoGation intends to pursue Denso Ten or related entities on these patents in subsequent proceedings.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 161 days
161 days — resolved well under the E.D. Texas median for patent cases
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows parties to exit without a merits ruling
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a joint stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. No court approval of the merits is required — the judge simply accepts and acknowledges the stipulation. This mechanism leaves the underlying patent validity and infringement questions entirely unresolved, meaning the patents emerge from this litigation neither validated nor invalidated.
No merits adjudicationInfoGation can refile — the dispute is paused, not closed
A without-prejudice dismissal does not extinguish InfoGation’s claims. The company retains the right to bring new infringement proceedings on US6292743B1 and US10107628B2 against Denso Ten or other defendants within the applicable limitations period. This is a meaningful distinction from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The public record does not disclose whether a private settlement or licensing agreement underlies this exit.
Claims may be refiledDenso Ten exits without a win — patent cloud remains
While Denso Ten avoids an infringement finding and any damages award in this proceeding, it did not secure a declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement. The without-prejudice structure means the same patents could be asserted again. Denso Ten’s exposure to these navigation patents persists unless it obtained a licence or covenant not to sue as part of any undisclosed private arrangement.
No invalidity finding securedAutomotive navigation suppliers remain exposed to these patents
US6292743B1 and US10107628B2 cover navigation mapping and mobile navigation methods relevant to in-vehicle infotainment and embedded navigation systems. With no invalidity or non-infringement ruling on record, other automotive electronics and navigation system suppliers face the same assertion risk. Companies developing or selling products in this space should assess their FTO position against both patents before assuming the dispute signals weakness in InfoGation’s portfolio.
Sector-wide exposure persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InfoGation, Corp. | Company | Navigation IP licensor — holder of US6292743B1 and US10107628B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Denso Ten Limited | Individual | Denso Ten Limited — Japanese automotive electronics supplier, in-vehicle navigation systemsSearch 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 | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Denso Ten LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Frank Rabena | Attorney | Counsel for Denso Ten LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William H. Mandir | Attorney | Counsel for Denso Ten LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sughrue Mion PLLC – DC | Law Firm | Representing Denso Ten LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Denso Ten LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text confirms a joint stipulation dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with all claims dismissed without prejudice and each party bearing its own costs. Notably, the court’s order references companion Member Case No. 2:24-CV-00301-JRG against Aisin Corporation, suggesting coordinated multi-defendant litigation. The without-prejudice structure and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with either an undisclosed licensing resolution or a strategic withdrawal pending further negotiations — the public record does not establish which.
US6292743B1 & US10107628B2 — Automotive Navigation and Mobile Mapping Systems
US6292743B1 (application no. US09/227331) covers a method and apparatus for navigating using artistic or stylised map representations — a technology relevant to in-vehicle navigation displays and map rendering engines. US10107628B2 (application no. US12/186524) is directed at mobile navigation systems including route calculation and guidance functionality. Both patents sit in the GPS and map-based navigation domain, which underpins a substantial portion of automotive infotainment and telematics product lines sold by tier-1 suppliers globally.
These patents carry strategic weight in the automotive electronics sector because map rendering and mobile navigation methods are foundational to in-vehicle navigation units, embedded infotainment systems, and increasingly to ADAS and connected-car platforms. The coordinated assertion against Denso Ten and Aisin — both major Japanese automotive electronics suppliers — suggests InfoGation views these patents as broadly applicable across the tier-1 supply chain. Companies developing navigation software stacks, map display modules, or route guidance APIs for automotive OEM customers should assess their exposure carefully.
Should your team run an FTO against US6292743B1 and US10107628B2?
Any company developing or commercialising in-vehicle navigation systems, map rendering engines, mobile turn-by-turn guidance, or connected-car navigation software should treat these patents as live risks. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case leaves both patents fully enforceable, and InfoGation’s apparent multi-defendant strategy suggests further enforcement actions are plausible. Automotive tier-1 suppliers, telematics platform providers, and aftermarket navigation device makers are the most directly exposed product categories.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map their navigation product architectures against the claim language of US6292743B1 and US10107628B2, identify design-around opportunities, and monitor InfoGation’s portfolio for continuation filings or new assertions. Automated claim-chart generation and prior art discovery tools can accelerate the analysis timeline significantly compared to manual prosecution history review.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6292743B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar navigation patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related GPS and mobile navigation patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas against automotive electronics and infotainment suppliers.
What this case signals for the automotive navigation IP landscape
A swift without-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas navigation litigation typically signals either early licensing or a strategic pause — not a portfolio retreat.
Without-prejudice exits preserve future enforcement leverage for patent holders
InfoGation’s ability to refile on US6292743B1 and US10107628B2 means Denso Ten and peers cannot treat this dismissal as a safe harbour. Automotive navigation and infotainment suppliers should treat the absence of a with-prejudice dismissal or invalidity ruling as a continuing risk signal and conduct formal FTO analysis against both patents.
E.D. Texas remains a high-pressure venue for automotive electronics defendants
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas is among the most active for patent infringement nationally. A 161-day resolution — before claim construction — suggests Denso Ten may have prioritised early resolution over litigating patent validity, a calculus that is common when litigation costs and venue risk are weighed against licensing economics.
InfoGation v Denso — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on 9 October 2024 via a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), 161 days after filing. InfoGation asserted US6292743B1 and US10107628B2 covering navigation mapping and mobile navigation systems. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
InfoGation asserted two patents: US6292743B1 (method and apparatus for navigating on artistic maps) and US10107628B2 (mobile navigation system). Both patents relate to GPS-based navigation and map rendering technologies applicable to in-vehicle infotainment and navigation systems of the type manufactured by Denso Ten.
A without-prejudice dismissal means InfoGation’s claims were not adjudicated on the merits and may be refiled within the applicable statute of limitations. Denso Ten did not obtain a finding of invalidity or non-infringement, so the patent cloud over its products remains. Other automotive navigation suppliers face the same potential exposure from these patents.
The public record does not disclose any settlement agreement or licensing terms. The joint stipulation of dismissal states only that each party bears its own costs. The without-prejudice structure and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with an undisclosed private resolution, but this cannot be confirmed from the court record.
The verdict text references a companion Member Case No. 2:24-CV-00301-JRG against Aisin Corporation, which was dismissed in the same order. This suggests InfoGation pursued coordinated, simultaneous infringement actions against multiple Japanese automotive electronics suppliers in E.D. Texas, consistent with a multi-defendant licensing enforcement campaign.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.