By: Emily M. Fraser
In an amended compliant filed on May 23, Israeli health tech company CardiacSense Ltd. (hereinafter, “CardiacSense”) defended the patent eligibility of its wearable tracker patent, advancing its ongoing legal action against Garmin International Inc. (hereinafter, “Garmin”).
The amended compliant follows patent litigation first initiated on May 22, 2024, in which CardiacSense had alleged that Garmin’s popular smartwatches infringe upon its U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998 (hereinafter, “‘998 patent”). CardiacSense’s ‘998 patent, entitled “Training and Instructing Support Device”, is directed to device for monitoring a user’s movement during training activities, specifically swimming, through the utilization of sensing units to measure linear acceleration across multiple axes. In filing its compliant, CardiacSense contended that Garmin manufactures and sells products that incorporate similar sensing technologies; Garmin, in response, moved to dismiss the case, reasoning that the claims of the ‘998 patent were invalid for being directed to an abstract idea, which is considered patent-ineligible subject matter.
When assessing if the claims of a patent are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, courts must apply a two-step test, known as the “Alice framework”, in accordance with Section 101 of the Patent Act. In conducting the initial step of the Alice framework, the reviewing court determines whether the patent claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. If the court determines that the contested claims are in fact directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the court must then evaluate if the claims contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. If the features of the claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, they fail to constitute an inventive concept.
In filing its motion, Garmin argued that CardiacSense’s ’998 patent was directed to an abstract idea because it measures movement using generic methods which do not provide substantive advancements to the state of the existing technology. Turning to relevant case law out of the Federal Circuit, Garmin’s assertions relied heavily on the ruling of iLife Technologies, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., in which the court held that iLife’s claims to a motion detection system were merely directed to the abstract idea of “gathering, processing, and transmitting information,” and failed to include an inventive concept. Garmin highlighted the resemblance of CardiacSense’s ‘998 patent claims to those of iLife, stating that both cover a device which uses a sensor to measure the movement of a body, processes the readout from the sensor to come to conclusions about the movement of that body, and then communicates that data elsewhere. Specifically, Garmin noted that claim 1 of the ‘998 patent was directed to measuring a training activity of a person wearing sensors which measure the movements of that person and communicate data about their movements. Accordingly, Garmin reasoned that the claims of the ‘998 patent were, much like the patent-ineligible iLife claims, solely focused on the abstract concept of gathering and transmitting information and thus were invalid.
In supporting the validity of its ‘998 patent claims, CardiacSense turned to other rulings in the Federal Circuit to assert that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea and did in fact pass the first step of the Alice framework. Citing Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, CardiacSense pointed to the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Thales’s claims, which featured a configuration of inertial sensors and methods to calculate a user’s position in space, were not directed to an abstract idea, because the systems and methods were deemed by the court to be “non-conventional”. CardiacSense urged that its claims were similarly non-conventional, because they provided “highly specific training data measured from the activity of the trainee” and included “instantaneous speed during swimming laps, hand or leg lifting height for each stroke.” CardiacSense reasoned that the claims therefore passed the second step of the Alice framework, in that they implemented a distinct improvement to the state of the art that would not be readily appreciated by the ordinary skilled artisan.
Siding with Garmin, the court reviewed the elements of the ‘998 claims both individually and as an ordered combination and maintained that they failed to contain an inventive concept. Refuting CardiacSense’s arguments regarding its specific training feedback, the court asserted that the ’998 patent accomplished its goal of providing real-time training data using “conventional and well-understood techniques,” absent any suggestion that the sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, processors, displays, vibrating pulses, and/or attachments contained any concepts not already well-understood in the art. The court further noted that the prior art already included the use of an accelerometer in similar swim-monitoring applications, establishing that the ‘998 claims were the product of routine, widely known techniques.
Although CardiacSense argued that Garmin did not provide any evidence that the ‘998 patent’s real-time feedback was well-understood, the court countered that the idea of providing real-time feedback to a trainee through observing their movements was an abstract one, and one which CardiacSense’s ’998 patent accomplished through relatively basic sensors and processors. As such, the court held that the ’998 patent failed to pass either step of the Alice framework.
CardiacSense’s recent decision to file an amended complaint is part of its broader, seemingly aggressive strategy to protect its patent rights against other wearable technology competitors. In addition to the lawsuit against Garmin, CardiacSense has also filed patent infringement lawsuits against Coros Wearables Inc. and Suunto Oy, alleging that their products also infringe upon the ‘998 patent. As Garmin is one of the most widely used and respected brands within the wearable device space, the company is unsurprisingly no stranger to defending its technologies in patent disputes. For example, in 2018, Garmin successfully defended itself against a patent infringement claim by PulseOn Oy regarding its Elevate™ wrist-based heart rate monitoring technology. While the ultimate outcome of the CardiacSense v. Garmin case would have significant implications for not only the disputing parties, but for other major players and stakeholders in the industry, CardiacSense may be facing an uphill battle given Garmin’s success in defending its IP. Thus, if this legal contest continues at its projected pace, it will be likely a race that Garmin can endure.