Executive Summary
Garmin and Cardiacsense have jointly moved to terminate their Inter Partes Review over U.S. Patent 7,980,998 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Garmin International, Inc. vs Cardiacsense LTD is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trial will take place.
Hisense USA Corp. et al.vsLight Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed a petition for inter partes review of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 7,936,415 covering LED backlight modules. The petition asserts seven obviousness grounds based on Roberts and other prior art references, seeking cancellation of all 18 claims.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd.vsCLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology's IPR challenge against CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.'s virtual clothing measurement patent. The Board found no motivation in the prior art (Grinspun and Graphicxtras) to combine them to achieve the claimed method of measuring 2D patterns with separation awareness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1‑15 of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 9,824,035 are unpatentable. Samsung and Micron successfully argued that the claims are obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure combined with the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
Apple, Inc.vsTHL Holding Company, LLC
Apple successfully convinced the PTAB that THL Holding Company's patent claims related to device location and pairing were obvious over a combination of six prior art references. The Board issued an institution decision, setting the stage for a full trial on the challenged claims.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.