Garmin International, Inc. v. Cardiacsense LTD

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00195
• Patent #: 7,980,998
• Filed: November 19, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Garmin International, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Cardiacsense Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-8 and 10-16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Device, system and method for measuring a training activity
• Brief Description: The ’998 patent describes a wearable device for measuring a participant's training activity, particularly swimming. The device includes a sensing unit with an accelerometer, a compass, and an optional gyroscope to measure movement parameters, and a processor to calculate training data based on those parameters.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Downey and MacIntosh - Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are obvious over Downey in view of MacIntosh.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Downey (Patent 7,889,085) and MacIntosh (Application # 2008/0284650).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Downey disclosed the foundational device: a wrist-worn watch for swimmers that uses an inertial sensor to detect arm movement and provide feedback. However, Petitioner argued Downey’s sensor suite was basic. MacIntosh was argued to supply the missing elements by teaching a sports sensor with a 3-axis accelerometer, a 3-axis gyroscope, and a 3-dimensional compass. The combination of these sensors in MacIntosh was used for dead reckoning—determining a change in location and orientation from a known starting point by integrating acceleration data, directly mapping to the limitations of independent claim 1.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the references to enhance the capabilities of Downey’s swimming watch. Incorporating MacIntosh’s advanced 3-axis sensor suite would allow the device to track a swimmer's 3-dimensional movement, orientation, and stroke efficiency, which was a known goal in the art and a predictable improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references describe wrist-worn sports sensors for swimmers using similar components (accelerometers, gyroscopes), making their integration straightforward.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Downey, MacIntosh, and Burton - Claims 8 and 12-16 are obvious over Downey in view of MacIntosh and further in view of Burton.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Downey (Patent 7,889,085), MacIntosh (Application # 2008/0284650), and Burton (Patent 8,330,611).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Downey/MacIntosh combination by adding the teachings of Burton to meet limitations related to multiple sensors and remote monitoring. Petitioner argued Burton disclosed a system for monitoring multiple swimmers with sensors attached to various limbs (e.g., arms and legs) that transmit data to a coach’s remote tablet computer. This directly taught the limitation in claim 8 for "at least one additional sensing unit" on an "additional body part" and the limitations in claim 12 for a remote computer that wirelessly receives and displays data for a coach.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Burton's features to the Downey/MacIntosh device to create a more comprehensive training system. Adding a second sensor to a leg would allow for analysis of kicking technique in addition to arm strokes. Providing real-time data to a coach's tablet would offer a significant advantage for immediate feedback and performance analysis, a known desire in competitive swimming.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Burton provided a clear blueprint for a multi-sensor system with remote display capabilities. Integrating this known technique for capturing more data into the established Downey/MacIntosh sensor platform was a predictable application of existing technologies.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Downey, MacIntosh, Burton, and Ohgi - Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are obvious over Downey, MacIntosh, and Burton, in further view of Ohgi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Downey (Patent 7,889,085), MacIntosh (Application # 2008/0284650), Burton (Patent 8,330,611), and Ohgi ("An Innovation for Swimming Stroke Monitoring," 2003).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses a specific, narrow interpretation of the claim phrase "for each of the measurements." Petitioner argued that Ohgi, a technical paper, disclosed processing the "whole time series" of acceleration and angular velocity data to reconstruct a swimmer's stroke path. This taught calculating location and orientation from every single sensor reading to achieve maximum accuracy. This method satisfied the narrow interpretation of the claim language that the base combination might not explicitly disclose.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to create a high-precision analysis mode in the combined training device, would look to techniques like those in Ohgi. While processing every data point increases power consumption, it offers a way to achieve superior accuracy, which would be a desirable feature for detailed, post-session analysis or for elite athletes, making it a suitable option to include.
  • Expectation of Success: The technique in Ohgi was a data processing method. Implementing this known processing algorithm on the data generated by the Downey/MacIntosh/Burton hardware would be well within the skill of a POSITA and would predictably result in a more granular analysis of swimmer movement.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional challenge to claims 10 and 11 based on Downey in view of general knowledge of a POSITA. A further ground challenged claim 4 by adding Takahashi (Application # 2003/0018274) to the primary combination for its teachings on an infrared, head-worn heart rate monitor.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "each of the measurements" (claims 1, 8): Petitioner argued this term is ambiguous. It could mean data is calculated using measurements from each type of sensor (accelerometer, compass), or it could require a calculation for every individual sensor reading. Petitioner presented grounds addressing both the broader interpretation (Ground 2) and the narrower, more demanding interpretation (Ground 4, relying on Ohgi).
• "means for attaching" (independent claims): Petitioner construed this as a means-plus-function term under §112, para. 6. The function is "attaching the sensing unit to a user's body part." The corresponding structure disclosed in the ’998 patent includes a watchband, headband, strap, or other equivalent attachment mechanisms.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’998 patent is not entitled to the 2006/2007 priority dates of its parent applications (WO 2008/032315 and U.S. Provisional 60/843,422). Petitioner argued these earlier applications failed to provide written description support for a key element required by all challenged claims: a "compass" within the sensing unit. Petitioner asserted the compass was new matter added in the 2009 application that matured into the ’998 patent, making its effective priority date March 11, 2009, and thereby rendering references like Downey and MacIntosh available as prior art.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv factors is unwarranted. To support this, Petitioner proffered a Sotera-style stipulation, agreeing that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the petition.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-8 and 10-16 of the ’998 patent as unpatentable.