SiRF Technology v. ITC — Federal Circuit Affirms GPS Patent Exclusion Order Under Section 337

Background

Global Locate, Inc. (acquired by Broadcom) held patents covering methods and systems for a GPS receiver to calculate its position more quickly by pre-loading satellite almanac and ephemeris data — a technology called “assisted GPS” (A-GPS). This technology dramatically reduced the time-to-first-fix for GPS devices by allowing them to use data downloaded from a network server rather than waiting to receive full satellite transmissions.

SiRF Technology, along with partners including E-TEN Information Systems, Pharos Science, and MiTAC International, manufactured and imported GPS chips and finished GPS devices. Global Locate filed a Section 337 complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging that these imported products infringed its A-GPS patents. The ITC found a violation and issued a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders. SiRF appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed on all key issues. First, the court rejected SiRF’s argument that Global Locate lacked standing to bring the ITC action because of a prior automatic-assignment provision in an inventor’s employment agreement. The court held that the assignment was properly recorded and that Global Locate had full rights to bring the infringement claims.

Second, the court rejected SiRF’s divided-infringement defense. SiRF argued that the GPS method claims required steps performed by a remote server (operated by a network provider) and steps performed by the GPS receiver (SiRF’s chip), and that no single party performed all steps. The court held that SiRF’s chips directly performed the key receiving and processing steps, and that the interaction with a remote server was not a claim step controlled by a separate party — the claimed methods focused on what the receiver did with data once received. Third, the court upheld the § 101 eligibility of the asserted method claims, finding that they were tied to a specific machine — the GPS receiver — satisfying the machine-or-transformation test under then-governing In re Bilski.

Key Takeaways

• Section 337 provides a powerful and fast enforcement tool at the ITC for patent holders facing infringing imports, with exclusion orders that can block entire product categories from entering the U.S. market.
• GPS and wireless communication method patents survived § 101 scrutiny in 2010 by satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, as the methods were tied to specific physical receivers and processors.
• A divided-infringement defense based on multi-party system architecture requires showing that separate, independently acting parties each perform distinct claim steps — a challenge that SiRF could not establish on these facts.
• Employment agreement automatic-assignment provisions do not necessarily defeat standing to enforce patents if the assignment is properly documented and recorded at the USPTO.

Why It Matters

The SiRF Technology case illustrates the power of ITC Section 337 proceedings as a strategic tool in IP enforcement against foreign manufacturers of consumer electronics. Because GPS chips were manufactured predominantly overseas and imported for use in consumer devices, the exclusion order — blocking SiRF’s chips at the U.S. border — was a potentially devastating remedy that could not easily be replicated in district court litigation.

For the GPS and mobile technology industry, the ruling affirmed that A-GPS technology — which became ubiquitous in smartphones and navigation systems — was patent-protected territory. For practitioners, the case provides guidance on how courts handle standing questions arising from employment agreement assignments and how to analyze divided infringement defenses in cases where networked devices interact with remote servers, an architecture that is foundational to cloud computing and IoT products.