DCT
5:25-cv-05897
Google LLC v. CardiacSense Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Google LLC (Delaware / California)
- Defendant: CardiacSense Ltd. (Israel)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Desmarais LLP
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-05897, N.D. Cal., 07/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Google alleges that venue is proper in the Northern District of California because a substantial part of the research and development for the accused products occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its Fitbit and Google Pixel Watch wearable devices do not infringe Defendant's patent related to motion-tracking and athletic instruction technology.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns wearable sensor technology used for monitoring athletic performance, a key feature set in the consumer smartwatch and fitness tracker market.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a prior lawsuit filed by CardiacSense against Google in the Western District of Texas, which CardiacSense voluntarily dismissed without prejudice while Google’s motions to dismiss and transfer venue were pending. Google filed this action to resolve the "cloud of uncertainty" created by the dismissal. CardiacSense has also asserted the same patent against another device maker in the Central District of California.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-09-11 | ’998 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-07-19 | ’998 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-12-06 | CardiacSense files initial lawsuit against Google in W.D. Tex. |
| 2024-12-18 | CardiacSense files lawsuit against Coros Wearables in C.D. Cal. |
| 2025-04-14 | CardiacSense voluntarily dismisses its lawsuit against Google |
| 2025-07-15 | Google files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998 - "Training and Instructing Support Device", issued July 19, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for systems that can monitor the movements of a person during an activity, such as swimming, and allow for real-time communication and instruction between a participant and an instructor (Compl. ¶15; ’998 Patent, col. 1:12-17, 1:48-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a personal wearable device containing a sensing unit with an accelerometer, a compass, and optionally a gyroscope to measure parameters of a body part's movement. A processor on the device calculates the location and orientation of the body part from these parameters. The system can also include a remote computer that wirelessly receives this data, allowing an instructor to analyze the performance and send feedback back to the participant via a presentation unit (e.g., earphones or a screen) on the wearable device (’998 Patent, col. 2:1-14, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology described combines inertial measurement sensors with wireless communication in a wearable form factor, enabling detailed biomechanical analysis and real-time coaching outside of a traditional laboratory environment (’998 Patent, col. 1:40-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any claim of the ’998 patent, with its specific non-infringement arguments in paragraph 24 directed at limitations found in independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24, ¶30(A)).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in essence:
- A sensing unit adapted to repeatedly measure movement parameters, which characterizes the location and orientation of a body part, the unit comprising at least an accelerometer and a compass.
- Means for attaching the sensing unit to the body part.
- A processor adapted to receive the parameters and calculate data including the location and orientation of the body part for each measurement.
- The complaint does not address dependent claims, but the prayer for relief covers all claims of the patent (Compl. ¶30(A)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Products" are identified as the Fitbit Versa 4, Fitbit Charge 5, Fitbit Charge 6, Google Pixel Watch 2, and Google Pixel Watch 3 devices (Compl. ¶¶16, 22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes these devices as smartwatches and fitness trackers whose "swim tracking functionality" was accused of infringement in the prior lawsuit (Compl. ¶2; Compl. Ex. 2, ¶25). Google asserts that the Accused Products have substantial non-infringing uses, such as telling time, tracking sleep, and facilitating payments via Google Wallet (Compl. ¶25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Google’s complaint outlines several bases for its assertion of non-infringement. The core allegations, which map to limitations in independent claim 1 of the ’998 Patent, are summarized below.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’998 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Google's Stated Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a sensing unit adapted to repeatedly measure... parameters associated with the movement of said body part... wherein said sensing unit comprising at least accelerometer means, a compass and optionally gyroscope means... | The Accused Products do not include a compass. | ¶24a | col. 4:3-4 |
| a processor adapted to receive from the sensing unit said parameters, and to calculate based thereon, data indicative of said training activity, said data including at least the location and orientation of said body part for ach [sic] of the measurements. | The processor in the Accused Products is not adapted to, and does not, calculate the location and orientation of the user's body part for each measurement. | ¶24d | col. 4:5-8 |
| a sensing unit adapted to repeatedly measure... angular acceleration values | The sensing unit in the Accused Products is not adapted to, and does not, repeatedly measure angular acceleration values. | ¶24c | col. 4:23-26 |
| said presentation unit comprising vibrating element adapted to generate vibratory pulses according to a predetermined rule | The Accused Products do not have a presentation unit with a vibrating element adapted to generate vibratory pulses according to a predetermined rule. | ¶24e | col. 5:50-55 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute will concern the definition of "compass". The court may need to decide if a magnetometer sensor, which may be present in the accused devices for other purposes (e.g., heading), meets the claim requirement for a "compass" as used in the context of calculating location and orientation.
- Technical Questions: The case raises the technical question of what level of computational fidelity is required by the limitation "calculate... the location and orientation of said body part". The dispute may focus on whether the swim-tracking algorithms in the Accused Products (which may identify stroke type or count laps) perform the specific function required by the claim, particularly when the patent specification provides examples of calculating specific x,y,z coordinates and yaw/pitch/roll angles (’998 Patent, Fig. 4B).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "compass"
- Context and Importance: Google’s complaint explicitly denies the presence of a "compass," making the construction of this term fundamental to the infringement analysis (Compl. ¶24a). Practitioners may focus on this term because modern smartwatches often contain magnetometers, and the dispute will be whether that component's function in the accused devices falls within the scope of "compass" as claimed by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning: any device for determining direction relative to the earth's magnetic poles.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes using the compass in concert with other sensors to "determine the movement of the body part" and to "reveal if the user stands or lays down on the ground, as well as the changes in the direction of movement," suggesting a functional role in a larger orientation-calculating system, not just a simple directional indicator (’998 Patent, col. 10:30-32, 10:55-59).
The Term: "calculate ... data including at least the location and orientation of said body part"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core output of the claimed processor. The central technical dispute will likely be whether the accused swim-tracking software performs this specific calculation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any algorithm that analyzes sensor data to derive information about a user's position (e.g., lap counting) and body posture (e.g., stroke-type identification) meets the requirement to "calculate... location and orientation."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly specific example in Figure 4B, which shows a table with calculated "Location S (x,y,z)" and "Orientation O (yaw, pitch, roll)" (’998 Patent, Fig. 4B). Further, the specification refers to determining the "exact location and orientation of the body part," suggesting the claim requires a quantitative, multi-axis spatial calculation rather than a more general or abstract analysis (’998 Patent, col. 4:15-17).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts that Google does not induce infringement because there is no underlying direct infringement by any user and because Google lacks the requisite specific intent (Compl. ¶27). It further denies contributory infringement, citing the lack of direct infringement and the existence of substantial non-infringing uses for the Accused Products (Compl. ¶28).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations related to willful infringement. However, it does request that the court find the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award attorneys' fees to Google (Compl. ¶30(C)).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears poised to turn on two central questions of claim interpretation and technical application:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "compass", as required by Claim 1, be construed to read on the standard magnetometer hardware included in modern smartwatches, or does the patent’s context require that the component be used specifically to perform the fine-grained "location and orientation" calculation that Google alleges its products do not perform?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mismatch: do the Accused Products' swim-tracking algorithms, which analyze movement to identify metrics like lap counts and stroke styles, perform the specific function of "calculating... the location and orientation of said body part" as taught and enabled by the patent, or is there a fundamental difference in the technical operation and precision of the output data?