DCT

2:24-cv-00215

Slyde Analytics LLC v. Garmin Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00215, E.D. Tex., 08/27/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are not residents of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). The complaint also alleges that Defendants conduct substantial business within the Eastern District of Texas through authorized dealers and sales.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartwatches, fitness trackers, and associated accessories infringe eleven patents related to smartwatch user interfaces, gesture-based power management, and the analysis of biomechanical parameters for athletic performance.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue are central to the functionality of modern wearable electronic devices, a highly competitive and significant segment of the consumer electronics market.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendant Garmin Ltd. admitted in a prior court filing that it knew of some of the asserted patents, which were previously owned by Myotest, as early as 2014. This allegation of pre-suit knowledge is foundational to the claims for willful and induced infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-07-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,651,922
2010-03-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,588,033
2010-06-16 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,320,457; 9,873,018; 10,881,905; 11,833,391
2011-06-17 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,536,134
2011-10-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,804,678; 10,198,085
2013-11-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,588,033 Issues
Early 2014 Date of Defendant's Alleged Knowledge of Certain Asserted Patents
2016-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,320,457 Issues
2016-10-06 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,687,809
2017-01-03 U.S. Patent No. 9,536,134 Issues
2017-05-16 U.S. Patent No. 9,651,922 Issues
2017-08-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,875,696
2017-10-31 U.S. Patent No. 9,804,678 Issues
2018-01-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,873,018 Issues
2019-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,198,085 Issues
2021-01-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,881,905 Issues
2023-06-27 U.S. Patent No. 11,687,809 Issues
2023-12-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,833,391 Issues
2024-01-16 U.S. Patent No. 11,875,696 Issues
2024-08-27 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,804,678, "Method and Circuit for Switching a Wristwatch from a First Power Mode to a Second Power Mode," issued October 31, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty in creating reliable "wake-up" gestures for devices like smartwatches. Simple methods based on accelerometer thresholds or touch panels alone often result in "undesirable activation," which drains the power reserve, particularly during activities like sports where strong accelerations are common. (’678 Patent, col. 2:6-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-stage method to more reliably detect an intentional tap. First, a low-power inertial sensor (an accelerometer) identifies a potential tap gesture by analyzing the acceleration signal's frequency, direction, and/or slope. (’678 Patent, col. 2:36-44). Only upon this initial detection does the system wake up a second component, the touch panel and its controller, to confirm that a touch gesture occurred concurrently. This combination of inertial and touch detection is used to trigger a switch from a first (low) power mode to a second (active) power mode. (’678 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:40-8:3).
  • Technical Importance: This combined sensor approach was aimed at enhancing the reliability of gesture-based wake functions on battery-constrained wearable devices, reducing power consumption from false positives while maintaining user responsiveness. (Compl. ¶ 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 14. (Compl. ¶ 36).
  • Essential elements of claim 14 include:
    • A wristwatch operable in a plurality of power modes comprising a display, a microcontroller, a touch panel, and a touch controller.
    • An inertial sensor (with accelerometer and processor) arranged to discriminate between gesture and no gesture while the microcontroller and touch controller are in a "sleep power mode."
    • The touch controller is commanded to switch to the second power mode upon gesture detection by the inertial sensor and is arranged for detecting a tap gesture.
    • The microcontroller is commanded to switch to the second power mode upon tap gesture detection by the touch controller and is also arranged for discriminating between gesture and no gesture based on signals from the touch panel.

U.S. Patent No. 10,198,085, "Method and Circuit for Switching a Wristwatch from a First Power Mode to a Second Power Mode," issued February 5, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a related patent to the ’678 patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of reliably waking a device from a low-power state while avoiding accidental activation from normal user movements or accelerations. (’085 Patent, col. 2:6-18).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention discloses a method for detecting a "wristturn" gesture using an accelerometer. The method requires detecting a specific sequence of events: (1) the wristwatch is held in a "starting position" within a first angular range for a defined time; (2) it is then moved to a "final position" in a second, different angular range; and (3) it then remains "substantially immobile" for a predetermined duration. Only if this entire sequence is detected does the watch switch from a first power mode to a second power mode. (’085 Patent, col. 9:28-10:17; Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific, multi-condition logical sequence for a "look-to-wake" gesture, aiming to create a highly reliable trigger that is less susceptible to false positives than simpler motion detection. (Compl. ¶ 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 49).
  • Essential elements of method claim 1 include:
    • Using an accelerometer to detect a wristturn.
    • Switching the wristwatch from a first power mode to a second power mode upon detection.
    • The detection step comprises detecting the watch is in a starting position (in a first range for a defined time).
    • The detection step further comprises detecting the watch is then in a final position (in a second, different range).
    • In response, the method detects that the watch remains "substantially immobile" for a predetermined duration and that the duration between the start and final positions is within a predefined range.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,588,033, "Wristwatch with Electronic Display," issued November 19, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a wristwatch with an electronic display that reproduces a simulation of a mechanical watch movement, including a gear train. The microcontroller is arranged to synchronize the time displayed by the simulated mechanical movement with a quartz oscillator. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 64).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 63).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Garmin's smartwatches, such as the Forerunner 965, infringe by allowing users to download and display digital watch faces from the Connect IQ Store that simulate mechanical watch movements. (Compl. ¶ 65). A screenshot of the "Art Deco" watch face is provided as an example. (Compl. at p. 23).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,651,922, "Wristwatch with a Touch Screen and Method for Displaying on a Touch-Screen Watch," issued May 16, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a user interface for a touch-screen watch where different full-screen informational "cards" can be scrolled through. The processing circuit is laid out to replace an initially displayed card with a replacement card based on the direction of a user's finger movement on the two-dimensional touch-sensitive glass. (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 75).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 74).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Garmin Forerunner 965 infringes by allowing a user to change the displayed face or application by swiping left, right, up, or down on the touchscreen, which corresponds to the claimed method of scrolling through and replacing cards. (Compl. ¶ 76). An "Overview" diagram from the user manual illustrates the touchscreen swipe functions. (Compl. at p. 27).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,320,457 and U.S. Patent No. 9,873,018, "Integrated Portable Device and Method Implementing an Accelerometer for Analyzing Biomechanical Parameters of a Stride"

  • Technology Synopsis: These related patents concern a device for analyzing a runner's stride using an accelerometer. The device calculates and displays biomechanical parameters such as vertical oscillation of the center of gravity, stride length, and cadence based on acceleration data. (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 89, 104).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 of each patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 85, 99).
  • Accused Features: The Garmin Forerunner 965 is accused of infringing by including a triaxial accelerometer and software (e.g., the Garmin Connect App) to track and calculate running metrics such as vertical oscillation, ground contact time, and stride length. (Compl. ¶¶ 86-90).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,536,134, "Athlete Performance Monitoring Device," issued January 3, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an athletic performance monitoring system comprising an accelerometer (worn near the athlete's center of gravity) that wirelessly communicates acceleration data to a separate user-worn device with a processing system (e.g., a mobile phone) to provide performance information. (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 116-117).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 115).
  • Accused Features: The Garmin Forerunner 965, in conjunction with a mobile phone running the Garmin Connect app, is alleged to implement this system, for example, with its "PacePro Training" feature that tracks a user's running pace. (Compl. ¶ 117).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,687,809, "Method and Apparatus for Predicting a Race Time," issued June 27, 2023

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a method for providing an athlete with race-time predictions and pace guidance during a race. A processing unit uses intermediate time data measured by sensors (e.g., accelerometer, GPS) to retrieve and apply a non-linear "race profile" based on previous race data to predict outcomes. (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 127, 129).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 20. (Compl. ¶ 126).
  • Accused Features: The Garmin Forerunner 965's "PacePro" feature is accused of infringing by allowing a user to set a pace for a workout and providing real-time feedback on current pace, target pace, and overall progress relative to the goal. (Compl. ¶¶ 127-131). A screenshot of the PacePro interface is provided. (Compl. at p. 43).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,875,696, "Method and Device for Retrieving Biomechanical Parameters of a Stride," issued January 16, 2024

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for determining biomechanical parameters of a runner's stride with high accuracy from an accelerometer worn on a limb (e.g., wrist). The method involves identifying and attenuating frequency components in the acceleration data caused by "extra-motions" (e.g., arm swing) relative to the runner's center of mass to derive a modified, more accurate data sequence. (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 141).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 17. (Compl. ¶ 140).
  • Accused Features: The Garmin Forerunner 965 is accused of infringing by comprising an accelerometer device for determining biomechanical parameters of a stride with high accuracy. (Compl. ¶ 141).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,833,391, "Integrated Portable Device and Method Implementing an Accelerometer for Analyzing Biomechanical Parameters of a Stride," issued December 5, 2023

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a method for analyzing a runner's stride using an electrically autonomous device that measures acceleration data to compute biomechanical parameters. These parameters include stiffness (based on maximum bearing force) and reactivity (ratio of flight time to contact time). (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 155).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 150).
  • Accused Features: The Garmin Forerunner 965 is accused of performing the claimed method by using its sensors and processor to track and compute various running metrics, which allegedly include the claimed parameters of stiffness and reactivity. (Compl. ¶¶ 151-156).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,881,905, "Integrated Portable Device and Method Implementing an Accelerometer for Detecting Asymmetries in a Movement of a User," issued January 5, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method and apparatus for detecting asymmetries in a user's movement (e.g., stride). A device fastened to the user's torso uses a triaxial accelerometer and digital processor to calculate biomechanical parameters, such as a "stride regularity index," to determine if asymmetries exist. (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 168, 170).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 166).
  • Accused Features: The Garmin HRM-Pro Plus accessory, used in operation with the Garmin Forerunner 965, is accused of infringing by monitoring the balance between left and right foot ground contact time to measure running symmetry. (Compl. ¶¶ 167-170). A screenshot shows the "Ground Contact Time Balance" feature. (Compl. at p. 56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a wide range of Garmin's smartwatches, fitness trackers, and associated software and accessories. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-31). The infringement allegations in each count, however, focus primarily on the Garmin Forerunner 965 as the representative accused product. (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 49, 63, 74, 85, 99, 115, 126, 140, 150, 166). The Garmin HRM-Pro Plus accessory is also accused in conjunction with the watch. (Compl. ¶ 166).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Garmin Forerunner 965 as a smartwatch with an AMOLED display that incorporates features for managing power consumption, such as an "Always On Display" mode and a "Gesture" mode to wake the screen by raising one's arm. (Compl. ¶ 37, p. 15). The device allegedly includes a touch panel, a microcontroller, and an inertial sensor with an accelerometer for detecting gestures like taps and wristturns to switch between power modes. (Compl. ¶¶ 38-39, 51). The complaint also alleges the device's software allows users to scroll through different information "cards" via swiping, download simulated mechanical watch faces, and use integrated sensors (accelerometer, GPS) to track, calculate, and display sophisticated biomechanical running metrics like vertical oscillation, stride length, and ground contact time symmetry. (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 76, 89, 167). The complaint characterizes Garmin as a "leading smartwatch seller in the United States and the world." (Compl. ¶ 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’678 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A wristwatch which can be operated in a plurality of power modes...comprising: a display; a microcontroller; a touch panel...; a touch controller... The Garmin Forerunner 965 is a wristwatch with multiple power modes (e.g., "General Use," "During Sleep"), an AMOLED display, a processor (microcontroller), and a touch panel with a touch controller. ¶¶37-39 col. 4:12-34
an inertial sensor comprising an accelerometer and a processor...arranged for discriminating between gesture and no gesture...while the microcontroller and the touch controller are in a sleep power mode The Forerunner 965 comprises an inertial sensor with an accelerometer that allegedly detects gestures to wake the device from a low power mode, such as when the screen is off after a "Timeout". ¶¶38, 40 col. 6:10-24
wherein the touch controller is commanded so as to be switched to the second power mode upon gesture detection by the inertial sensor and for detecting a tap gesture on the cover glass with the touch panel The complaint alleges the touch controller is switched to an active mode upon an initial gesture detection by the inertial sensor, and is then used for detecting a tap gesture on the cover glass. ¶39 col. 7:40-8:3
and wherein the microcontroller is...commanded to be switched to the second power mode upon a tap gesture detection by the touch controller and for discriminating between gesture and no gesture, based at least on signals from the touch panel. The complaint alleges the microcontroller is switched to an active mode after the touch controller detects a tap, and that the user can wake the device "by tapping the screen." ¶¶39-40 col. 7:40-8:3
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Architectural Questions: A central technical question may be whether the Garmin Forerunner 965's hardware and software architecture performs the specific two-step "wake up" sequence required by the claim. The dispute may focus on what evidence exists that the inertial sensor first detects a gesture while the main microcontroller and touch controller are in a "sleep power mode," and that this detection then triggers the touch controller to wake up and confirm the gesture before waking the main microcontroller.
    • Scope Questions: The definition of "sleep power mode" may be a key point of claim construction. The question will be whether the alleged low-power states of the accused device's microcontroller and touch controller meet the specific meaning of this term as used in the patent.

’085 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for switching a wristwatch from a first power mode to a second power mode, comprising: using an accelerometer for detecting a wristturn... The Garmin Forerunner 965 performs a method of switching from a low power mode to a normal power mode by using an accelerometer to detect a wristturn. This is described as the "Gesture" setting, which "turn[s] on the screen by raising and turning your arm to look at your wrist." ¶¶50-51, 53; p. 19 col. 9:28-34
detecting that an orientation of the wristwatch is in a starting position, wherein said step...comprises detecting that the orientation... is held within a first range for a defined time; The complaint alleges the device performs the step of detecting that its orientation is in a starting position held within a first range for a defined time. ¶52 col. 9:57-10:2
detecting that an orientation of the wristwatch is then in a final position...in a second range different from said first range, The complaint alleges the device performs the step of detecting that its orientation moves to a final position within a second, different range. ¶52 col. 10:4-11
in response...detecting that the wristwatch remains substantially immobile during a predetermined duration and that a duration between the starting position and the final position is in a predefined range. The complaint alleges that in response to the final position detection, the device detects that it remains "substantially immobile during a predetermined duration" and that the time between the start and final positions is within a predefined range. ¶52 col. 10:12-17
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on the specific algorithm Garmin uses for its "Gesture" feature. The question will be whether Garmin's software actually performs each distinct step recited in the claim: detecting a stable starting position for a "defined time," detecting a stable final position, and then detecting a state of being "substantially immobile."
    • Scope Questions: The construction of terms like "held within a first range for a defined time" and "substantially immobile during a predetermined duration" will be critical. The dispute may center on whether the accused device's functionality meets these specific temporal and stability requirements, or if it uses a simpler motion-based trigger that falls outside the claim's scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from the ’678 Patent: "sleep power mode"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the claimed invention, which requires the initial gesture discrimination to occur while the main microcontroller and touch controller are in this state. The definition will determine whether the accused device's low-power architecture infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality of modern smartwatch low-power states is complex and may not map directly to the patent's specific description.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the first power mode as a "sleep mode, or standby mode, in which the power consumption is reduced but no indications are displayed on the display." (’678 Patent, col. 3:14-17). This could support an interpretation that any state with reduced power and an inactive display qualifies.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 14 explicitly requires both the "microcontroller and the touch controller" to be in the sleep power mode while the "inertial sensor" processor performs its function. This could support a narrower definition where specific, distinct components must be in a low-power state, not just the device generally. The patent also distinguishes between a "hot power saving mode allowing for a very fast re-start" and a "cold power saving mode," suggesting different levels of "sleep." (’678 Patent, col. 5:63-6:2).

  • Term from the ’085 Patent: "substantially immobile"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is the final check in the claimed "wristturn" detection sequence and is critical for distinguishing an intentional "look-to-wake" gesture from other arm movements. The case may turn on whether the normal stabilization of the wrist after looking at a watch is sufficient to meet this requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "substantially immobile" could be argued to cover the brief period of relative stillness when a user holds their wrist up to view the screen, even if minor tremors or movements are present.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more specific implementation: "the system...verifies whether this final orientation of the wristwatch is maintained during a given duration. For this, the value of the acceleration along the three axes is periodically verified. If all 3 axis show no movement above a certain threshold for a defined time...then the system determines that the user is probably consulting his watch." (’085 Patent, col. 10:25-34). This passage could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring a specific algorithmic check for movement below a defined threshold.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendants provide the accused products to customers and end-users with instructions on how to operate the infringing features, specifically referencing the Garmin Forerunner 965 Watch Owner's Manual. (Compl. ¶¶ 41-43, 55-57, 66-68, etc.).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge at least as of the date of the original complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 56). Crucially, it further alleges pre-suit knowledge for some of the patents originating from Myotest, citing a purported admission by Garmin Ltd. in a previous litigation that it was aware of these patents in "early 2014." (Compl. ¶ 92, fn. 23; ¶ 108, fn. 30). The complaint also alleges Defendants "adopted a policy of not reviewing the patents of others." (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 56).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of architectural and algorithmic correspondence: Does the Garmin Forerunner 965's actual hardware operation and software logic for its "tap-to-wake" and "wristturn" features map onto the specific, multi-step sequences required by the claims of the ’678 and ’085 patents? This will likely involve a technical deep-dive into the accused device's power states and gesture-recognition algorithms.
  • A second core issue will involve claim scope and interpretation: Can terms like "sleep power mode" and "substantially immobile," which are central to the patents' claimed points of novelty, be construed broadly enough to cover the functionality of the accused products, or will intrinsic evidence from the patent specifications limit them to narrower technical implementations that Garmin's devices do not practice?
  • A third critical question, particularly for damages, will be one of scienter and willfulness: What is the scope and impact of Garmin's alleged pre-suit knowledge of certain asserted patents from 2014? The resolution of this factual issue will be central to the determination of whether any infringement was willful, which could expose the defendant to the possibility of enhanced damages.