InfoGation Corp. v. Honda Motor Co. — Navigation Patents Resolved in 301 Days
InfoGation Corporation brought a four-patent infringement action against Honda Motor Co. in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting navigation systems in 18 Honda and Acura models. The parties resolved the dispute privately and filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice after 301 days — a resolution timeline that suggests early settlement before any substantive court rulings.
Four Navigation Patents, 18 Honda Models, One Early Resolution
Filed on 7 November 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, InfoGation Corp. v. Honda Motor Co. (Case No. 2:23-cv-00513) centred on alleged infringement of four navigation system patents — US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, and US8898003B1 — by in-vehicle navigation systems deployed across eighteen Honda and Acura models including the Accord Hybrid, CR-V, Civic, MDX, and Pilot. The breadth of the product list signals that InfoGation targeted Honda’s core navigation platform rather than any single model variant.
The case closed on 3 September 2024, just 301 days after filing, via a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice. The parties represented to the court that they had ‘resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Honda,’ and Judge Gilstrap granted the motion. The dismissal with prejudice forecloses InfoGation from re-asserting the same claims against Honda on these patents. Each party bearing its own costs suggests the settlement terms were agreed without a fee-shifting concession from either side.
A 301-day resolution in E.D. Texas — before claim construction or any substantive motion rulings — is consistent with a negotiated licence or covenant-not-to-sue rather than a litigated outcome. The financial terms of any resolution remain confidential and are not reflected in the public record. What the public record does confirm is that no court ever ruled on the validity or infringement of the four asserted navigation patents, leaving their enforceability against third parties entirely unresolved.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 301 days
301 days — below the E.D. Tex. median for patent cases proceeding to claim construction
Dismissed with prejudice by joint motion: what the order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars re-filing these claims against Honda
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. InfoGation cannot re-file these specific infringement claims against Honda on the four asserted patents. The joint nature of the motion — both parties signing — confirms mutual agreement, distinguishing it from a court-ordered or unilateral dismissal. No substantive patent rulings were made.
Res judicata as to HondaInfoGation resolves claims; private terms likely include a licence or payment
For a patent licensing entity, a joint dismissal with prejudice after less than ten months typically signals a negotiated resolution — whether a lump-sum licence, running royalty, or covenant. The public record is silent on financial terms. InfoGation retains the ability to assert the same four patents against other automotive OEMs, as the dismissal is Honda-specific and does not affect the patents’ validity or scope.
Patents remain live vs. third partiesHonda extinguishes this claim early — no court rulings on validity
Honda secured a dismissal with prejudice without any court ruling on the merits of infringement or patent validity. The ‘each party bears own costs’ clause indicates Honda did not win a fee award, suggesting the resolution was commercial rather than a finding of exceptional case. Honda’s navigation systems across its full model line are now insulated from this specific litigation threat from InfoGation.
No invalidity ruling obtainedNavigation patents remain untested — risk persists for other OEMs
Because no court evaluated the infringement or validity of InfoGation’s four navigation patents, competing OEMs and Tier-1 navigation system suppliers cannot rely on this case for a freedom-to-operate position. The patents survive intact and enforceable. InfoGation’s willingness to resolve early and broadly — across 18 models — may indicate a licensing-forward strategy targeting additional automotive defendants.
Ongoing risk for automotive sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InfoGation, Corp. | Company | Navigation patent licensing entity — holder of US8406994B1 and three further navigation system patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Honda Motor Co., Ltd. | Company | Honda Motor Co., Ltd. — global automotive OEM; navigation systems across Honda and Acura model linesSearch 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 | David Sebastian Almeling | Attorney | Counsel for Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Frances Mackay | Attorney | Counsel for Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Liang | Attorney | Counsel for Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paige Hardy | Attorney | Counsel for Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sorin Zaharia | Attorney | Counsel for Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP – San Francisco | Law Firm | Representing Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order closely tracks the language of the joint motion itself — granting dismissal on the parties’ joint representation that claims have been ‘resolved,’ without any factual finding on infringement or validity. The ‘each party bears own costs’ clause is a standard mutual-walk-away term that neither implies admission of infringement by Honda nor confirms the strength of InfoGation’s patent positions. The denial of all pending motions as moot confirms no substantive rulings were ever issued, leaving the four navigation patents untouched by judicial scrutiny.
US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2 & US8898003B1 — Vehicle Navigation Systems
The four asserted patents span a navigation technology portfolio with application dates ranging from the early 2000s (US6292743B1, application US09/227331) through to the early 2010s (US8898003B1, application US13/850669). This breadth of filing dates suggests InfoGation constructed a layered portfolio designed to cover both foundational navigation architectures and later refinements in route calculation, traffic integration, and dynamic guidance — technologies now embedded in virtually all modern OEM head unit systems.
For automotive OEMs and their Tier-1 navigation suppliers, a four-patent portfolio with staggered priority dates represents a structurally difficult invalidity challenge: defeating one patent on prior art does not extinguish the others. The deployment of this portfolio against 18 Honda and Acura models — spanning hybrid, SUV, sedan, and performance segments — suggests the asserted claims are written broadly enough to read on a common navigation platform rather than model-specific implementations. This makes the portfolio commercially significant beyond the Honda context.
Should your navigation system team run an FTO against these four InfoGation patents?
Any OEM, Tier-1 supplier, or navigation software vendor whose products perform route calculation, dynamic guidance, or GPS-based map display should treat this portfolio as an active risk. The Honda case resolved without any claim construction or validity ruling, meaning no public record narrows or clarifies the scope of the asserted claims. Engineering teams integrating third-party navigation stacks — or developing proprietary systems — have no court-issued guidance on where the claim boundaries sit.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the four patent claim sets against your product’s technical architecture, surface relevant prior art, and flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit the patents’ reach. For portfolio-level exposure — especially where multiple navigation patents with staggered priority dates are involved — Eureka’s multi-patent FTO workflow generates a consolidated risk matrix, allowing your legal and engineering teams to prioritise design-around or IPR petition strategies before litigation is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8406994B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Navigation Patent Infringement Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving in-vehicle navigation system patents litigated before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas follow recognisable resolution patterns worth benchmarking.
What this case signals for the automotive navigation IP landscape
An early, confidential resolution across 18 models signals active licensing pressure on automotive navigation stacks. Other OEMs should take note.
InfoGation’s four patents remain fully enforceable against third parties
The Honda dismissal is party-specific. No invalidity finding, no claim construction order, and no IPR outcome is attached to this case. Competing OEMs — Toyota, Stellantis, GM, Ford — and Tier-1 navigation suppliers face the same four-patent assertion profile InfoGation deployed here. A freedom-to-operate analysis against these patents is not optional for companies with similar in-vehicle navigation systems.
E.D. Texas, Judge Gilstrap: a plaintiff-favoured venue signal
Filing in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap is a deliberate venue choice that increases settlement pressure on defendants. The 301-day resolution suggests Honda’s litigation team calculated that early resolution was preferable to Markman proceedings in this venue. Other defendants facing similar assertions should factor venue dynamics into their litigation risk models from day one.
InfoGation v Honda — key questions answered
InfoGation Corp. filed a patent infringement suit against Honda Motor Co. on 7 November 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four navigation system patents against 18 Honda and Acura vehicle models. The case closed on 3 September 2024 via joint motion to dismiss with prejudice after the parties represented they had resolved InfoGation’s claims. No merits rulings were issued. Each party bore its own costs.
InfoGation asserted four patents: US8406994B1 (application US12/614406), US6292743B1 (application US09/227331), US10107628B2 (application US12/186524), and US8898003B1 (application US13/850669). All relate to vehicle navigation system technologies including route calculation, dynamic guidance, and GPS-based map display. No claim construction ruling was issued, so the operative scope of the claims was never publicly adjudicated.
Dismissal with prejudice means InfoGation is barred from re-asserting the same infringement claims against Honda on these four patents. However, the dismissal is Honda-specific — it does not affect the patents’ validity, scope, or enforceability against any other defendant. InfoGation retains full ability to assert the same portfolio against other automotive OEMs or navigation suppliers.
The complaint targeted navigation systems in 18 models: Accord Hybrid, Acura Integra, CDX, CR-V, CR-V Hybrid, Civic, Civic Type R, HR-V, Honda Accord, ILX, MDX, NSX, Odyssey, Passport, Pilot, Ridgeline, RDX, RLX, and TLX. The breadth across Honda and Acura segments suggests the asserted claims target a common navigation platform rather than model-specific implementations.
A 301-day resolution in E.D. Texas before claim construction is consistent with a negotiated commercial settlement, typically a licence or covenant-not-to-sue. Filing before Judge Gilstrap in E.D. Texas — a plaintiff-favoured patent venue — creates early scheduling pressure that incentivises defendants to evaluate resolution options before Markman proceedings. The public record does not disclose financial terms; the ‘each party bears own costs’ clause suggests a mutual resolution without fee concessions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.