DCT
2:24-cv-11368
CardiacSense Ltd v. Garmin Intl Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CardiacSense LTD (Israel)
- Defendant: Garmin International, Inc. (Kansas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL ZITO CASTELLANO
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-11368, E.D. Mich., 05/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of smartwatches and fitness trackers infringes a patent related to a personal device for measuring and analyzing training activity using a specific suite of sensors.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to wearable electronic devices that use inertial sensors to monitor, record, and provide feedback on a user's physical activities, a major product category in the consumer electronics market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was previously found patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in separate litigation in the Central District of California, [CardiacSense LTD](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/cardiacsense-ltd). v. Coros Wearables, Inc., suggesting Plaintiff may preemptively use this ruling to counter potential invalidity arguments from the Defendant.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998 Priority Date |
| 2011-07-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998 Issued |
| 2025-04-23 | C.D. Cal. ruling in CardiacSense v. Coros litigation |
| 2025-05-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998 - "Training and Instructing Support Device"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon existing athletic training devices by enabling more detailed measurement of a person's movements and providing a system for real-time communication and instruction based on that data, particularly in environments like swimming where communication is difficult. (’998 Patent, col. 1:12-21, 1:47-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a personal, wearable device that uses a specific combination of sensors—an accelerometer, a compass, and optionally a gyroscope—to repeatedly measure the movement of a body part. (’998 Patent, Abstract). A processor then uses these sensor inputs to calculate data about the training activity, specifically including the "location and orientation" of the body part for each measurement, which can then be used for analysis or real-time feedback. (’998 Patent, col. 4:1-7). Figure 2B illustrates the core sensing unit with an accelerometer (70) and gyroscope (80) for measuring movement along multiple axes. (’998 Patent, Fig. 2B).
- Technical Importance: This specific configuration of sensors and processing claims to provide a more accurate calculation of a user's position and orientation, allowing for real-time feedback to improve training methods in ways that prior systems could not. (’998 Patent, col. 2:15-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶28).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A personal device for measuring a training activity of a trainee.
- A sensing unit adapted to repeatedly measure parameters associated with the movement of a body part, comprising at least an accelerometer, a compass, and optionally a gyroscope.
- Means for attaching the sensing unit to the body part.
- A processor adapted to receive the parameters from the sensing unit and calculate data indicative of the training activity, including at least the location and orientation of the body part for each measurement.
- The complaint also asserts infringement of claims 2-7 and 10-16, which include dependent claims. (Compl. ¶29, 40).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses a wide range of Garmin's training watches and devices, including the Venu, fēnix, Forerunner, and epix series products (collectively, the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶9, 22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are smartwatches equipped with a variety of sensors for tracking physical activities. (Compl. p. 10). The complaint highlights that the Garmin Venu 3, as an exemplary product, includes an accelerometer, compass, and gyroscope. (Compl. p. 10-11). It alleges these sensors are used to track activities like swimming by automatically recording intervals and lengths, and to enable features like "Move IQ," which automatically detects and records exercise patterns based on user movements. (Compl. p. 9, 14). The complaint presents a screenshot from Garmin's website showing a smartwatch attached to a swimmer's wrist, stating it provides "personalized data that's going to help your form." (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'998 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A personal device for measuring a training activity of a trainee having a body part which moves and changes its location and orientation, during said training activity... | The Garmin Venu 3 is a personal smartwatch worn on the wrist that tracks training activities such as swimming, where the user's arm moves and changes location and orientation. A marketing screenshot depicts the Venu 3 watch. (Compl. p. 8). | ¶28 | col. 4:1-4 |
| (a) 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 Venu 3 contains a sensor suite including an accelerometer, compass, and gyroscope. The complaint provides a specifications table listing these sensors. (Compl. p. 10). These sensors are alleged to measure movement during activities like swimming. (Compl. p. 9). | p. 10-11 | col. 10:8-14 |
| (b) means for attaching the sensing unit to said body part | The Venu 3 watch body, which contains the sensing unit, is attached to the user's wrist via a watch band. The complaint includes a diagram showing how to change the bands using a quick-release spring bar. (Compl. p. 13). | p. 13 | col. 8:40-49 |
| (c) 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 each of the measurements. | The Venu 3 contains a processor that receives data from the sensors and uses features like "Move IQ" to compare "received information pertaining to the location and orientation of the watch to detect and record when the user is performing a particular activity." (Compl. p. 14). | p. 14 | col. 7:65-8:2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the claim requirement to calculate data including "at least the location and orientation of said body part for each of the measurements." The defense may question whether the Accused Products' functionality, such as the "Move IQ" feature which "automatically detects the event," constitutes the specific calculation of location and orientation for each discrete sensor measurement, or if it performs a more general activity classification that does not meet this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the processor "compares received information pertaining to the location and orientation of the watch." (Compl. p. 14). A key question for discovery will be what specific "location and orientation" data is actually calculated and used by the processor. Does the device calculate and store discrete, time-stamped location/orientation data points corresponding to each sensor reading, as the claim language suggests, or does it use raw sensor data in an algorithm to recognize a general activity pattern without explicitly calculating and storing location and orientation for each measurement?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "data including at least the location and orientation of said body part for each of the measurements"
- Context and Importance: This term is the functional heart of the processor limitation (1c) and defines the output of the claimed invention. The interpretation of "location and orientation" will be critical. If construed narrowly to require specific, absolute coordinates (e.g., GPS) and compass headings, infringement may be more difficult to prove for certain indoor activities. If construed more broadly to include relative position and orientation (e.g., the position of a wrist during a swim stroke relative to the torso), it could cover a wider range of the accused functionality. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's evidence for this element centers on high-level features like "Move IQ" and swim-lap counting, rather than demonstrating the specific calculation of location and orientation for each measurement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system as being used for activities like swimming, where relative body part movement is more important than absolute global position. (e.g., ’998 Patent, col. 10:45-51). Figure 4B, a table of example calculated data, includes "Location S (x,y,z)" and "Orientation O (yaw, pitch, roll)," which could be interpreted as a relative coordinate system rather than absolute geographical coordinates. (’998 Patent, Fig. 4B).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim separately recites a "compass" in the sensing unit, which directly measures orientation relative to an external reference (magnetic north). This may support an argument that "orientation" requires a specific, absolute directional component. The specification also discusses using the device for monitoring a "group of participants," which could imply a need for more absolute location data to track individuals relative to each other. (’998 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement under § 271(b), stating that Garmin provides the Accused Products with instructions that lead customers to use them in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶24, 36). It also alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c), claiming Garmin supplies a material part of the invention (the watches) with knowledge of infringement, and that the infringing functionality is not a staple article of commerce. (Compl. ¶24, 37). The complaint further alleges infringement when the watches are combined with third-party applications like "Wondercise" and "MySwimPro." (Compl. ¶32-33).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement or plead facts showing pre-suit knowledge by Garmin. However, the prayer for relief requests a judgment declaring the case "exceptional" and awarding attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willfulness or litigation misconduct. (Compl. p. 18, ¶E).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the claim term "data including at least the location and orientation of said body part for each of the measurements"? The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether this phrase requires the calculation of specific, discrete position/orientation data points or if it can be read more broadly to cover general activity recognition based on movement patterns.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: What specific calculations do the processors in the Accused Products actually perform? The case will likely require a deep dive into Garmin's source code and technical documentation to determine if features like "Move IQ" meet the functional requirements of the asserted claims, or if there is a fundamental mismatch between the patented method and the accused operation.