AmNav sues Apple for using a GPS-based Maps application on their iOS devices

“American Navigation Systems, Inc. (AmNav) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple. “The patent infringement lawsuit concerns Apple’s use of GPS in mobile devices, iDevices more specifically.”

“According to AmNav’s complaint before the court, the inventors of their acquired patent ‘conceived a way to display GPS data in real time on a portable mapping device,'” Purcher reports. “AmNav, who is seeking a royalty from Apple, continually references Google Maps far more than they do Apple Maps. Their angle is to go after the device makers as this is where their patent applies. So, instead of going after Google directly, they’re going after Apple for Maps on iOS and Samsung for Maps on Android.”

Read more in the full article here.


  1. So, there’ll like be a map. And – umm – it’ll use GPS maps data acquired elsewhere — and — uhhh — it’ll like put the map on the screen. Yehhhh, that’s it.

      1. Garmin’s first GPS unit was sold in 1995, one year before these guys allegedly built their device. I’d sure like to see this prototype they came up with. Should still be around elsewhere. While you can describe the function of such a device in a short paragraph, the electronics are not that simple to design and build. Garmin’s been making handheld devices for years. If they had such a good idea, why didn’t they market it? Why didn’t they sue Garmin back in 2000?

      2. You don’t have to actually make anything to have a legitimate claim of infringement. The owner of intellectual property, has the right to protect it regardless of whether or not it was ever manufactured. Get your Apple out of your ass.

        1. I wasn’t sure if I agreed with what you were saying, David. But then your last sentence… Wow! What insightful thinking! Great use of the English language. Sure convinced me.

        2. That’s true, Dave, you don’t have to manufacture a product to protect your patent (although I am beginning to think that requiring the utilization of a patent within a period of time after filing might be a good change). I believe that The Roving Skeptic and others are just pointing out that this guy appears to have started several non-producing “businesses.” If these are simply shells for the sake of litigation, then the “troll” moniker applies.

          The validity of the patent also seems in doubt, as The Roving Skeptic and others state. Prior art appears to be a viable defense, as does obviousness (although the USPTO appears to be very lenient with respect to the latter factor).

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.