Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00195, Garmin International, Inc. and Cardiacsense LTD jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998, which covers swimming‑stroke monitoring technology. The parties resolved all underlying disputes through a settlement agreement, and the Board has not yet decided the merits of the case. Citing 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and Board practice favoring settlement, they request dismissal to conserve resources. The motion includes extensive exhibit lists of prior art and a confidential settlement exhibit.
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
FUJIFILM Corporation et al.vsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have agreed to settle their patent dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, planning to dismiss the case after a 45‑day stay.
Applied Concepts Inc.vsKustom Signals Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 15 claims in a traffic radar system patent (11,194,039) after finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art references like Aker and Thomas.
JACS Solutions, Inc.vsGlobal Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies
JACS Solutions and Global Tel*Link jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00484 after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized the termination, ending the review of patent 9,030,292.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Microchip Technology, Inc.vsAptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Aptiv’s U.S. Patent 10,545,899, alleging the Board failed to analyze prior art and apply agreed claim construction.
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.