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
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their PTAB inter partes review disputes, leading to termination of four IPRs covering Dyson vacuum technology patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOne-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of One‑E‑Way’s U.S. Patent 10,129,627 covering wireless digital audio spread‑spectrum technology, seeking cancellation of all twelve claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2, 5, 7‑8, and 11 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’395 patent on the ground of obviousness over Moir and Martínez. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted AMD and Pensando’s request for rehearing, vacated the earlier discretionary denial of institution, and sent the IPR back to the Board for a standard institution decision.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Target’s ’359 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
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.