CardiacSense Ltd v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CardiacSense LTD (Israel)
  • Defendant: Google LLC a/k/a Google Fitbit (United States)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01505, W.D. Tex., 12/06/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Google maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there, including sales and importation of the accused products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wearable fitness devices, including the Google Pixel Watch and Fitbit product lines, infringe a patent related to a personal device for measuring and analyzing a user's training activity.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable sensors for motion tracking in fitness and sports, a key feature set in the competitive consumer smartwatch and health-monitoring market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing negotiations concerning the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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 addresses the need for detailed, real-time monitoring and instruction for athletes during training activities like swimming, where communication and data collection are challenging (’998 Patent, col. 1:11-19, col. 2:48-55). Existing devices were identified as lacking integrated, multi-participant communication and comprehensive movement analysis capabilities (’998 Patent, col. 1:21-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a personal, wearable device that uses a sensing unit containing an accelerometer, a compass, and an optional gyroscope to repeatedly measure the movement of a body part (’998 Patent, Abstract). A processor within the device is adapted to receive these measurements and calculate data that characterizes the location and orientation of the body part, providing detailed feedback on the training activity (’998 Patent, col. 4:1-14). The system is described in a configuration where data can be transmitted from multiple trainees to an instructor's computer for analysis and real-time coaching feedback (’998 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a system for capturing multi-axial motion data to provide quantitative analysis of athletic form and performance, moving beyond simple lap timers to a more sophisticated coaching tool (’998 Patent, col. 2:15-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, and 12, as well as several dependent claims (Compl. ¶20). Claim 1 is the only independent claim quoted in the complaint (Compl. ¶13).
• 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, characterizing its location and orientation.
  • The sensing unit comprises at least accelerometer means, a compass, and optionally gyroscope means.
  • 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, with the data including at least the location and orientation of the body part for each measurement.
• The complaint states that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert at least claims 1-7, 10, and 12-16 of the ’998 Patent (Compl. ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are wearable "training devices" including the Google Pixel Watch 2, Google Pixel Watch 3, Fitbit Charge 5, Fitbit Charge 6, and Fitbit Versa 4 (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products function as "training activity monitoring device[s]" that infringe the ’998 Patent when used with their native applications (Compl. ¶21). It further alleges that the devices, when used "in combination with a Google app running on a mobile phone," also constitute infringing devices (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of the accused products' sensors or processors, instead referencing exemplary claim charts that are not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include the exemplary claim charts that detail its infringement theory (Compl. ¶17). The analysis below is based on the allegations in the body of the complaint and the language of asserted independent claim 1 of the ’998 Patent.

’998 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires the device's processor to "calculate" data that includes "location and orientation." The complaint alleges infringement by the accused devices both alone and "in combination with a Google app running on a mobile phone" (Compl. ¶22). This raises the question of where the claimed calculation occurs. A dispute may arise over whether the onboard processor of an accused watch performs the complete calculation as claimed, or if it offloads some or all of this processing to a connected smartphone or server, potentially creating a divided infringement issue.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement case for claim 1 rests on the factual presence of each recited sensor. A key question for discovery will be whether all accused products contain a "compass" and use it to "characteriz[e] the location and orientation" of a body part for training analysis, as opposed to for unrelated functions like mapping. The complaint does not provide evidence on this point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "calculate based thereon, data indicative of said training activity, said data including at least the location and orientation of said body part" (from claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The location of this "calculation" is critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the calculation is primarily performed on a connected smartphone rather than on the accused wearable device itself, it could challenge the allegation of direct infringement by the device.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a system where a personal device (10) has a processor (12) that "can derive, calculate or otherwise determine various data D from the measured parameters P" ('998 Patent, col. 8:1-2). A plaintiff may argue that any significant processing on the device that contributes to the final calculated data meets this limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites "a processor adapted to... calculate," located within the "personal device." A defendant may argue this requires the processor on the wearable itself to perform the complete calculation of location and orientation. Figure 1 shows the personal device (10a, 10b) performing the calculation locally before transmitting data (D) to the instructor's computer (22) ('998 Patent, Fig. 1).

• The Term: "compass" (from claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term establishes a specific hardware requirement for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the technical implementation and purpose of orientation sensors in modern smartwatches may not align with the patent's description of a "compass."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the compass's purpose is to provide an external frame of reference, stating its measurements are "provided relative to the earth electromagnetic field" and can be used to detect a turn in a swimming pool ('998 Patent, col. 10:50-59). This could support construing "compass" to cover any sensor, such as a magnetometer, that performs this function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently lists the compass as a distinct component alongside the accelerometer and gyroscope ('998 Patent, col. 10:22-26, claim 1). A defendant could argue this requires a discrete hardware component or a specific mode of operation dedicated to directional finding, as opposed to a general-purpose magnetometer used for other sensor-fusion tasks.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Google provides the accused products with instructions that lead customers to use the devices in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶15, 33).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the claim that Google continued its infringing conduct "since at least as early as they became aware of the ’998 Patent" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint further alleges that Google has "no good faith defense" and "refused to cease selling products or to engage in further attempts to reach a business resolution," which may suggest that pre-suit notice was provided (Compl. ¶26).

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

• A central issue will be one of infringement locus: does the onboard processor of an accused Google or Fitbit device, by itself, perform the claimed function of "calculat[ing]... data including at least the location and orientation," or is that function divided between the wearable and a connected smartphone in a manner that may not satisfy the claim limitations for the device itself?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical capability: does the complaint provide, or will discovery reveal, that every accused product model contains hardware and software that meets each element of the claimed "sensing unit"—specifically a "compass"—and that it is used to characterize body part orientation for training analysis as the patent requires?
• The viability of the willfulness claim will depend on factual questions regarding the timing and substance of Google's first notice of the ’998 Patent and its subsequent conduct, particularly concerning the alleged refusal to engage in business discussions.