Peregrine Data LLC v. Garmin, Ltd. — Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice in 57 Days
Peregrine Data LLC asserted US8319619B2, a patent covering stored vision technology for automobiles, against navigation and GPS leader Garmin, Ltd. in Florida’s Southern District. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice just 57 days after filing, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
A Swift Exit: Stored-Vision Patent Claim Against Garmin Ends at 57 Days
On 18 February 2025, Peregrine Data LLC filed a patent infringement action against Garmin, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida before Judge Raag Singhal. The asserted patent, US8319619B2, covers stored vision technology for automobiles — a domain squarely relevant to Garmin’s navigation, dashcam, and driver-assistance product lines. Peregrine Data, represented by Beusse Sanks PLLC, took on Garmin’s defence team at Baker Botts LLP.
The case closed on 16 April 2025, just 57 days after filing, via a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims by Peregrine Data against Garmin International, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice, and all counterclaims by Garmin against Peregrine Data were likewise dismissed with prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a standard mutual walk-away structure.
A 57-day resolution is exceptionally fast for patent litigation, which typically spans years at the district court level. The speed and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with an early negotiated resolution, though the public record does not confirm whether a confidential licence or settlement payment was exchanged. The with-prejudice dismissal prevents Peregrine Data from re-filing the same claims against Garmin on this patent, representing a meaningful concession by the plaintiff.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 57 days
57 days — well below the median patent case duration, suggesting early resolution
Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal by both parties
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this route requires Garmin’s agreement — suggesting the exit terms were mutually negotiated rather than driven solely by Peregrine Data. The with-prejudice designation makes the dismissal a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes.
Bilateral stipulated exitWith prejudice confirmed — but underlying terms are not public
The stipulation explicitly states dismissal WITH PREJUDICE, meaning Peregrine Data cannot refile these specific claims against Garmin on US8319619B2 in any federal court. This is a stronger outcome for Garmin than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open to re-litigation. Whether a confidential licence fee, cross-licence, or other commercial arrangement underlies the dismissal is not disclosed in the public record.
Bars re-litigation on this patentPeregrine Data forfeits the right to re-assert against Garmin
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Peregrine Data LLC permanently relinquishes its infringement claims under US8319619B2 against Garmin. If the dismissal reflects a confidential settlement, the plaintiff may have extracted commercial value. If not, the with-prejudice term represents a clean defence win for Garmin. The patent itself remains valid and may still be asserted against other parties in the automotive technology sector.
Claims extinguished vs. GarminGarmin exits cleanly — no costs, no admission, counterclaims dismissed
Garmin, Ltd. achieves a strong litigation exit: all claims against it are dismissed with prejudice, its own counterclaims are also dismissed (avoiding any risk of adverse ruling on those), and it faces no cost award. Represented by Baker Botts LLP, Garmin’s team achieved resolution before significant discovery costs accrued. The mutual cost-bearing structure is consistent with a negotiated outcome rather than a litigated victory.
Clean exit, no liabilityFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Peregrine Data LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8319619B2, stored vision for automobilesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Garmin, Ltd. | Company | Garmin, Ltd. — global navigation, GPS, and automotive technology manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Terry Marcus Sanks | Attorney | Counsel for Peregrine Data LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Beusse Sanks PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Peregrine Data LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brenton Hayes Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Garmin, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rachael Lamkin | Attorney | Counsel for Garmin, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Garmin, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Raag Singhal | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s explicit with-prejudice language, applied symmetrically to both claims and counterclaims, is legally significant: it constitutes a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, foreclosing any future action by Peregrine Data against Garmin on US8319619B2. The mutual cost-bearing clause and the absence of any admitted liability or court-adjudicated finding means neither party emerges with a public legal victory — but Garmin’s substantive position is stronger, having eliminated the infringement cloud with no monetary exposure confirmed in the public record.
US8319619B2 — Stored Vision Technology for Automobiles
US8319619B2, filed under application number US12/661217, covers stored vision technology for automobiles. This patent sits at the intersection of vehicular sensing, data storage, and display systems — technology relevant to dashcams, event data recorders, advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), and connected vehicle platforms. The patent’s grant designation indicates it has passed examination and is enforceable as issued, subject to any post-grant proceedings.
Strategically, US8319619B2 is positioned to capture value across a rapidly growing segment of the automotive electronics market. Navigation and GPS companies like Garmin, as well as OEM suppliers developing ADAS and fleet telematics solutions, fall within the potential scope of assertion. With Garmin now protected by a with-prejudice dismissal, the patent remains a live enforcement asset against other players in dashcam hardware, vehicle black-box systems, and real-time driving data capture — making freedom-to-operate analysis essential for competitors.
Should your team run an FTO against US8319619B2?
Any company developing or commercialising automotive video storage, dashcam systems, event data recorders, or connected vehicle data capture technology should assess its exposure to US8319619B2. The Peregrine Data v. Garmin action confirms this patent is being actively asserted in U.S. federal court. With Garmin now insulated by a with-prejudice dismissal, enforcement attention may shift toward other automotive technology and navigation companies.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US8319619B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may narrow claim scope, and flag related family members or continuation patents that could extend coverage. For R&D and product teams working on ADAS, dashcam, or fleet telematics, a proactive FTO assessment now is substantially lower-cost than litigation defence later.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8319619B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Stored Vision & Automotive Technology Disputes
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving automotive sensing, stored vision, and navigation technology filed in U.S. district courts, including the Florida Southern District.
What this case signals for the automotive technology IP landscape
A 57-day dismissal in a stored-vision patent case carries distinct signals for IP strategy in the automotive tech and navigation sector.
Speed of resolution suggests early strength assessment by both parties
Cases resolved in under 60 days rarely reach substantive motion practice. This timeline is consistent with either a pre-filing negotiation that carried over, or a rapid post-filing assessment by Garmin’s Baker Botts team that prompted swift settlement discussions. Companies in the automotive technology space should monitor how quickly similar PAE-filed cases resolve as a signal of patent strength.
With-prejudice term sets a meaningful precedent for this patent’s enforceability
The with-prejudice dismissal against Garmin strengthens Garmin’s position permanently but does not affect US8319619B2’s enforceability against other automotive technology or navigation companies. R&D and product teams at competitors should treat this patent as still active and potentially assertable — Peregrine Data retains full enforcement rights against all non-Garmin targets.
Peregrine v Garmin — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 16 April 2025, just 57 days after filing. All claims by Peregrine Data against Garmin and all counterclaims by Garmin against Peregrine Data were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Peregrine Data asserted US8319619B2, filed under application number US12/661217, covering stored vision technology for automobiles. The patent relates to vehicular data capture and storage systems relevant to dashcams, event data recorders, and ADAS platforms.
Yes — as between these two parties. A with-prejudice dismissal constitutes a final adjudication on the merits, barring Peregrine Data from re-asserting US8319619B2 infringement claims against Garmin in any U.S. federal court. However, the patent remains enforceable against all other parties in the automotive technology sector.
The public record does not disclose any settlement payment or licence agreement. The joint stipulation states only that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Whether a confidential commercial arrangement underlies the dismissal cannot be confirmed from available court documents.
Peregrine Data LLC was represented by Beusse Sanks PLLC, with attorney Terry Marcus Sanks listed. Garmin, Ltd. was represented by Baker Botts LLP, with Brenton Hayes Cooper and Rachael Lamkin listed as defence attorneys. The case was heard before Judge Raag Singhal in the Southern District of Florida.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.