CardiacSense Ltd v. Casio Computer Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CardiacSense LTD (Israel)
  • Defendant: Casio Computer Company LTD. (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-15246, D.N.J., 07/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges venue is proper in the district because Defendant is a foreign corporation that regularly transacts business, derives substantial revenue, and places its products into the stream of commerce within the district and the State of Texas. The complaint caption contains a typographical error, listing the venue as the "DISTRICT OF TEXASEW JERSEY."
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s G-SHOCK series of sport and training watches infringes a patent related to a personal device for measuring a user's training activity using motion sensors.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of wearable fitness monitoring, where sensors such as accelerometers and gyroscopes are used to capture and analyze the biomechanics of an individual's movement during physical activity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-09-11	’998 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2011-07-19	’998 Patent - Issue Date
2025-07-02	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998 - "Training and Instructing Support Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998, “Training and Instructing Support Device,” issued July 19, 2011 (the “’998 Patent”). (Compl. ¶18).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for systems that can measure the movement parameters of a person engaged in a physical activity, such as swimming, and facilitate real-time communication between an instructor and the participant based on those measurements. (’998 Patent, col. 1:40-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a personal, wearable device that uses a sensor unit—comprising at least an accelerometer and a compass, and optionally a gyroscope—to repeatedly measure parameters associated with the movement of a body part. (’998 Patent, Abstract). A processor receives these sensor readings and calculates data indicative of the training activity, including the location and orientation of the body part for each measurement, allowing for detailed analysis of an athlete's performance and form. (’998 Patent, col. 2:40-53).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide objective, quantitative data on complex athletic motions, enabling more precise performance analysis and coaching than was possible with simpler tools like stopwatches. (Compl. ¶15, ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-7, 10, and 12-16, with a focus on independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶27, ¶36).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A personal device for measuring a training activity of a trainee having a body part which moves and changes its location and orientation.
  • A sensing unit adapted to repeatedly measure parameters associated with the body part's movement, where the sensing unit comprises at least accelerometer means, a compass, and optionally gyroscope means.
  • The accelerometer means is adapted to measure linear acceleration along three axes, and the gyroscope means is adapted to measure angular acceleration around three axes.
  • Means for attaching the sensing unit to the body part.
  • A processor adapted to receive the measured parameters and calculate, based on those parameters, data indicative of the training activity, where the data includes at least the location and orientation of the body part for each measurement. (Compl. ¶20; ’998 Patent, col. 18:2-24).
• The complaint does not specify which dependent claims it intends to assert beyond a general listing. (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Casio’s sport and training watches, including but not limited to the G-SHOCK Watches, G-SHOCK GBDH2000, G-SHOCK GBDH2000-2, G-SHOCK GBDH2000-1A, G-SHOCK GBDH2000-1A9, and 6-Sensor+GPS Multi Sport Watches (the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "training activity monitoring device[s]" that contain software for tracking physical activity. (Compl. ¶28). It also notes that the devices can connect with applications on Android and Apple mobile phones. (Compl. ¶29). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific operation of the sensors or software within the Accused Products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that "Exemplary claim charts demonstrating the correspondence of the operation of the exemplary accused products with elements of exemplary claims" are attached as Exhibits B, C, and D. (Compl. ¶24). However, these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint. The infringement allegations within the body of the complaint are therefore conclusory and do not map specific features of the Accused Products to the limitations of the asserted claims. The complaint broadly alleges that the Accused Products "satisfy the elements of the asserted claims as illustrated in the attached charts." (Compl. ¶26).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint's infringement theory appears to rely entirely on information contained within the un-provided exhibits. A central question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to plausibly allege that the Accused Products' internal components and software perform each of the specific functions required by the asserted claims.
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites several "means" elements (e.g., "accelerometer means"), which are subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). The scope of these terms is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification and their equivalents. A likely point of dispute will be whether the specific sensor assemblies used in the Accused Products are structurally equivalent to the "accelerometer module 70" and "gyroscope module 80" described in the ’998 Patent. (’998 Patent, col. 10:30-38).
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a processor that calculates "location and orientation" based on parameters from the sensing unit. The Accused Products are identified as "6-Sensor+GPS" watches. (Compl. ¶16). This raises the question of whether the devices calculate location based on accelerometer data, as the claim implies, or derive location primarily from an independent GPS signal, which may place their functionality outside the literal scope of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "accelerometer means"

• Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function term, and its construction will define the scope of sensor technology covered by the claim. The claimed function is "to measure linear acceleration of said body part along three axes." (’998 Patent, col. 18:11-12). Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will require a comparison between the specific accelerometer hardware in the Casio watches and the structure disclosed in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, referring to "accelerometer means" without specifying a particular type.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a corresponding structure for this function: an "accelerometer module 70 adapted to measure linear acceleration of the measured body part along three orthogonal axes." (’998 Patent, col. 10:31-33; Fig. 2B). The scope of the term will be limited to this disclosed structure and its equivalents.

• The Term: "a processor adapted to... calculate based thereon, data... including at least the location and orientation of said body part"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical as it dictates the specific calculation the processor must perform. The dispute will likely center on the meaning of "calculate based thereon," specifically whether it requires location to be derived from the motion sensor data itself (e.g., via double integration of acceleration) or if it can be read to cover systems that determine location from other sources, such as GPS.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "based thereon" only requires the sensor parameters to be an input into a broader calculation, which could also incorporate GPS data to arrive at a final location value.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim structure suggests a direct causal link: the processor receives "said parameters" (linear/angular acceleration) from the sensing unit and "calculate[s] based thereon" the resulting location and orientation. The specification's Figure 4B shows "Location S (x,y,z)" being derived from "Measurements (Linear/Rotational)," supporting the interpretation that location is calculated from the motion sensor inputs. (’998 Patent, Fig. 4B; col. 18:20-24).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant knowingly induces its customers to infringe by providing the Accused Products along with instructions for their use. (Compl. ¶22, ¶32, ¶40).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported awareness of the ’998 Patent, with knowledge dating from "at least as early as they became aware of the '998 Patent." (Compl. ¶33). The complaint also establishes a floor for knowledge as of the filing of the lawsuit, suggesting a potential reliance on a theory of post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶22).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the means-plus-function term "accelerometer means," which is tied to the specific "module 70" disclosed in the patent, be construed to cover the particular sensor hardware and configuration utilized in Casio's G-SHOCK watches?
• A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does the processor in the accused watches "calculate" a user's "location" from accelerometer and gyroscope data as required by Claim 1, or does it primarily rely on an integrated GPS receiver for location data in a manner that falls outside the claimed method of operation?
• An immediate procedural question will concern the sufficiency of the pleadings: given that the complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and defer all technical specifics to exhibits that were not filed, a threshold issue will be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.