S3flyer

I dunno. I'm probably the only one in this thread that doesn't view this as David vs. Goliath where David is good guy for the sole reason he's smaller. Garmin is defending their patent which existed considerably before uAvionix was founded. This may be genuine or could very well be litigation intended to stop or slow a competitor. There is no way for any of us to know. The courts must feel there is merit to the case as it's not been thrown out. Also, there could very well be a recognition that uAvionix has a reasonable chance of success since the injunction has not been granted. uAvionix is not a mom-n-pop organization. They've received at least $10M in VC funding from a couple substantial funds. They will have the means to defend themselves.

Mike -- fantastic analysis. thanks! Andy, dang it, you beat me to the keyboard on the EoP And this is where I have a different POV on the term 'transmission'. I believe Garmin will try to establish that receiving transponder information over a powerline is just a different transport mechanism and, hence, would be included in their patent. Convincing a jury of this will be anybody's guess.

The Garmin patent doesn't look like it would apply here -- my summary of their summary omitted a key term: "Techniques are described that allow information to be acquired by an ADS-B system of an aircraft.....". Ground stations appear to be excluded.

Looks like uAvionix is claiming that receiving transponder information over electrical power lines keeps it clear of Garmin's patent. Garmin's patent, though, is more focused on the process of using information from a transponder and including this information in an ADS-B data stream -- not the actually acquisition technology. Their patent has examples of how this works but they are clear that data may be acquired using other methods to implement the Garmin invention. It'll be interesting to following the case

I don't think so. Amongst other things you can patent a technology process which is what this patent looks like. From the US Patent office (bold added by me):

The actual language is: I don't know how a dual entry system could be used without having a few seconds of conflicting information. This addition was one reason why the gen 1 Skyguard ADS-B out became a boat anchor on 1/1/2020. 'Prior Art' could benefit uAvionics if they can prove the auto squawk was in use or common practice before December 2009. I think they will have trouble since the ADS-B AC 20-165 was first issued in May 2010. Another interesting point in the lawsuit is that Garmin is asking for a jury trial. This is rarely done in technology IP cases since technology may be too complex for the average citizen to fully grasp. Garmin must feel the infringement is easy to demonstrate.

Not an option -- the draft ADS-B standard allowed for dual entry but the final rule requires single entry. Hence the race for auto squawk. Also, we can bemoan that Garmin was able to patent a specific use of transponder output but the fact is things like that ARE patentable and it looks like Garmin beat everyone else to the punch. It also looks like Garmin and uAvionix held discussions where they may have learned of the usage and agreed to 'design' around the patent. Garmin claims the before and after designs were identical. If true, uAvionix has to go back to the drawing board or license the auto squawk technology/process. Given that damages are occurring and are likely to accelerate (from a Garmin perspective) it would not surprise me if the temporary injunction against uAvionix is issued relatively quickly.

Eric, Is the Echo ESX ADS-B In as well? And if so, is it WIFI like the UAT?

I've seriously thought about moving the bottom of my yellow to 240 for the sole reason to allay concerns from passengers when I climb out on a hot Texas day. In end, I decided to brief my passenger on what to expect and the 'yellow' is simply a warning and is normal for my plane on hot days. Normal being defined as 9 years of consistent behavior.

Yup. The Skyguard devices are defined as portable so they could release the product sooner. They have a nice bracket to permanently install but cannot do so until they get FAA approval (in process).

I've got the opposite -- a statement from Garmin that says the 79x does NOT meet the 2020 requirement AND there are no plans to do so. I got the same answer from Trig when I was working on receiving traffic. They have a compliant transponder (but need a compliant source). They mentioned the 79x would "work" in waking up the ground stations but did not provide the information needed to meet the 2020 mandate. Keep in mind Trig makes the Dynon transponders.

Don't think you'll fit a 7" product in the same place as a 5". The 496 Airgizmo is 6.25" x 4.25" and the iFly 720 is 6.25" x 7.2". I'm guessing that the folks at Oshkosh were stating it could fit in the same panel width?

The 740 sounds like a really nice device that compares favorably (or even better than the 79x) given it's newer vintage. Andy -- so do you plan to try for an LOA or go E-LSA?

Andy -- I would call iFly and make sure they have specific installs of the iFly product running your version of the AP. I was going down the iFly 720 direction a couple years ago and there were very few examples of it running my Dynon AP. The installations at the time were reporting problems. In the end, I went with a 795 since I knew Dynon (and Trutrak) deal with Garmin interfaces on a frequent basis and any issues would likely be seen by a larger client base. I have heard great things about iFly's responsiveness and I'm confident they've addressed any issues. I just felt the incremental $500 was worth the piece of mind. YMMV. BTW -- Garmin annual subscription is only $99 for the Aera series.