InfoGation v. Mazda: Four-Patent Navigation Suit Dismissed With Prejudice After 253 Days
InfoGation Corp. filed a four-patent infringement action against Mazda Motor in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the Mazda Connect navigation platform across more than ten vehicle models. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41 after 253 days, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Navigation Patent Asserter Walks Away — Permanently — From Mazda Claims
InfoGation Corp., a navigation technology patent holder, filed suit against Mazda Motor Corp. on December 10, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted four patents — US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, and US8898003B1 — covering apparatus and methods for navigation systems. The accused products included the Mazda Connect platform and associated navigation systems across eleven named vehicle lines, from the Mazda3 Sedan to the CX-90 PHEV and MX-5 Miata RF.
The case concluded on August 20, 2025, when the court accepted InfoGation’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal covered the consolidated lead case (2:24-cv-1020) and the member case (2:24-cv-1005), which named HERE Global B.V. and HERE International B.V. as defendants alongside Mazda. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, fees, and expenses — a cost-neutral resolution that suggests negotiated exit rather than a contested ruling.
A 253-day lifespan without reaching claim construction or trial suggests the case resolved before significant merits engagement. The involvement of HERE Global and HERE International — suppliers of map and navigation data — indicates the dispute extended to the underlying platform stack, not merely the vehicle-facing interface. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement or commercial settlement accompanied the dismissal; the with-prejudice designation nonetheless permanently forecloses these specific claims against these defendants.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 253 days
253 days — faster than the EDTX median for multi-patent infringement actions, suggesting early resolution pressure.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41 voluntary dismissal with prejudice: no second chance
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss a case without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. A with-prejudice designation converts this procedural exit into a final adjudication on the merits — InfoGation cannot refile these four patent claims against Mazda, HERE Global, or HERE International in any federal court.
Permanent bar on refilingInfoGation surrenders these claims permanently against Mazda
Dismissal with prejudice is the strongest form of closure available short of a court judgment. InfoGation retains ownership of all four patents and may still assert them against other defendants, but the res judicata effect of this dismissal bars any future action on these specific claims against Mazda, HERE Global B.V., and HERE International B.V. The cost-neutral order suggests no damages were awarded to either side.
Patents survive; this claim does notMazda and HERE exit with no liability finding — but no fee award
Mazda Motor, HERE Global B.V., and HERE International B.V. obtained a permanent dismissal without any finding of infringement, validity, or damages. The own-costs order means defendants did not recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which typically requires a finding of an ‘exceptional case.’ The absence of a fee award is consistent with a negotiated or commercially motivated exit rather than a litigation defeat for the plaintiff.
No liability; no fee recoveryMazda Connect IP risk partially cleared — portfolio watch remains warranted
Automotive OEMs and navigation platform vendors integrating HERE-powered systems should note that the four InfoGation patents remain active and enforceable against other parties. The consolidated structure — naming both the OEM and the navigation data supplier — signals a portfolio enforcement strategy that may be replicated against other vehicle brands. Competitors using similar in-vehicle navigation architectures should monitor InfoGation’s filing activity across the EDTX docket.
Portfolio enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InfoGation, Corp. | Company | Navigation patent licensing entity — holder of US8406994B1 and three further navigation method patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mazda Motor, Corp. | Company | Mazda Motor Corp. — Japanese automotive OEM, maker of Mazda Connect in-vehicle navigation platformSearch 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts InfoGation’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and explicitly closes both the member case (2:24-cv-1005) and the lead case (2:24-cv-1020), confirming no claims or parties remain consolidated. The with-prejudice designation carries res judicata weight, permanently extinguishing these four patent claims against Mazda and both HERE entities. The own-costs order — expressly covering costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — forecloses any post-dismissal fee motion under § 285, leaving both sides to absorb their own litigation spend.
US8406994B1 — Navigation Apparatus and Method Patents in Automotive Context
US8406994B1 is a granted US patent with application number 12/614406, covering apparatus and methods for navigation systems. Alongside it, InfoGation asserted US6292743B1 (apno 09/227331), US10107628B2 (apno 12/186524), and US8898003B1 (apno 13/850669) — a portfolio spanning multiple application generations, suggesting layered coverage of navigation routing, map processing, and platform operation. The breadth of application dates indicates claims that may encompass both legacy and modern connected-vehicle navigation architectures.
For automotive OEMs and navigation platform vendors, a four-patent portfolio spanning hardware apparatus, routing methods, and data processing creates overlapping claim coverage that is difficult to design around without comprehensive FTO analysis. The assertion against Mazda Connect — a platform shared across eleven named vehicle lines — illustrates how a single navigation architecture can generate exposure across an entire model range. Other OEMs using HERE-powered or similarly architected in-vehicle navigation systems face comparable risk from this portfolio while it remains active.
Should your navigation platform be cleared against InfoGation’s portfolio?
Any automotive OEM, Tier 1 supplier, or navigation platform provider integrating turn-by-turn routing, map-matching, or connected navigation into vehicles sold in the US market should assess exposure against InfoGation’s four-patent portfolio. The Mazda dismissal does not extinguish claims against other parties — if your product uses comparable apparatus or methods for vehicle navigation, these patents remain a live risk, particularly given InfoGation’s demonstrated willingness to file in the EDTX before Judge Gilstrap.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to run structured freedom-to-operate searches across US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, and US8898003B1 simultaneously. Eureka maps claim language against your product architecture, surfaces prior art, and identifies prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope — giving your legal and engineering teams the evidence base needed to assess risk before a notice letter or complaint arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8406994B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Automotive Navigation Patent Cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Comparable navigation system infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas against automotive OEMs and connected-vehicle platform providers.
What this case signals for the automotive navigation IP landscape
A four-patent broadside against a major OEM and its navigation stack supplier ending in a with-prejudice exit carries clear strategic signals for the sector.
HERE’s co-defendant status exposes platform suppliers to direct patent risk
By naming HERE Global and HERE International alongside Mazda, InfoGation signalled a strategy of targeting the full navigation stack — OEM and underlying data/platform provider alike. Automotive suppliers providing map, routing, or connected navigation services should conduct FTO analysis against InfoGation’s portfolio, not assume OEM indemnification covers all exposure.
EDTX remains the preferred venue for navigation patent assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas continues to attract navigation and connected-vehicle patent cases. OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers without established EDTX litigation counsel or venue-transfer arguments face elevated risk when operating in this jurisdiction. Early venue challenge strategy should be factored into any defence budget.
InfoGation v Mazda — key questions answered
InfoGation Corp. filed a four-patent navigation infringement action against Mazda Motor Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas on December 10, 2024. The case was dismissed with prejudice on August 20, 2025, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs and fees. Both the lead case and the consolidated member case were closed.
InfoGation asserted four patents: US8406994B1, US6292743B1, US10107628B2, and US8898003B1. All cover navigation apparatus and methods. The accused products included the Mazda Connect navigation platform deployed across eleven named vehicle lines including the Mazda3, CX-90, CX-50, and MX-5 Miata RF.
HERE Global B.V. and HERE International B.V. were named as co-defendants in the consolidated member case (2:24-cv-1005), consistent with InfoGation’s apparent strategy of targeting both the OEM and the underlying navigation platform and map data supplier. This approach reflects a full-stack enforcement theory — that both the vehicle maker and the technology provider bear potential infringement liability.
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. InfoGation is permanently barred from re-asserting these four navigation patents against Mazda Motor Corp., HERE Global B.V., and HERE International B.V. in any federal court. The patents remain enforceable against all other parties not named in the dismissal.
No. The court’s order expressly directed that the plaintiff, HERE Global B.V., and HERE International B.V. each bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The absence of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is consistent with the case not reaching an ‘exceptional case’ finding — typically requiring litigation misconduct or objectively baseless claims — before the voluntary dismissal was filed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.