CardiacSense v. Garmin: Wearable Monitoring Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Israeli health-tech firm CardiacSense LTD asserted US7980998B2 against 19 Garmin smartwatch and fitness tracker products — including the Forerunner, Venu, fenix, and epix lines — in Michigan’s Eastern District. After 448 days of litigation, CardiacSense voluntarily dismissed its own case with prejudice, permanently closing the infringement claim.
CardiacSense’s 19-Product Garmin Assault Ends in Self-Inflicted Dismissal
CardiacSense LTD, an Israeli medical-technology company, filed suit against Garmin Ltd. on 22 May 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 2:24-cv-11368). The single patent asserted — US7980998B2, originating from application US12/382214 — relates to wearable physiological monitoring technology. CardiacSense targeted an unusually broad product slate: 19 named Garmin devices spanning the Forerunner 945 LTE, 955, 955 Solar, 965, the Venu 2/2 Plus/2S/3/3S and original Venu fitness smartwatches, the fēnix 7, vívoactive 4/4S, Instinct 2 and 2X Solar Tactical Edition, and both generations of the epix Pro Sapphire and Standard editions.
The case closed on 13 August 2025 when CardiacSense filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and the court entered a dismissal with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B) or court order — it permanently extinguishes CardiacSense’s right to reassert US7980998B2 against Garmin for the same accused products and conduct. Garmin, represented by Baker Botts LLP, achieves a complete exit from this litigation without a court merits ruling, but benefits from the preclusive effect of the with-prejudice designation.
The 448-day duration before a voluntary dismissal is notably longer than cases that settle early, suggesting substantive motion practice or settlement negotiations may have shaped the outcome. The public record does not disclose whether a financial settlement accompanied the dismissal, though a with-prejudice dismissal on the plaintiff’s initiative is frequently — though not always — associated with a confidential resolution. What remains unknown is whether CardiacSense received any licensing consideration from Garmin, or whether the dismissal reflects an uncompensated concession following unfavourable pre-trial developments.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 448 days
448 days — above the median for voluntarily dismissed district court patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what CardiacSense’s withdrawal means for both sides
With-prejudice dismissal is a permanent bar on refiling
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under the Federal Rules operates as a final adjudication on the merits. CardiacSense cannot refile claims based on US7980998B2 against Garmin for the same accused conduct. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, which preserves the right to re-sue, this designation permanently extinguishes the cause of action. The court did not issue a substantive ruling on infringement or validity.
Rule 41 — permanent barCardiacSense loses its right to re-assert against Garmin
By filing a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, CardiacSense permanently surrendered its infringement claims against Garmin under US7980998B2 for the 19 accused products. Whether this reflects a confidential licensing deal or a strategic retreat is not determinable from the public record. What is clear is that CardiacSense cannot return to court against Garmin on these specific claims — a significant concession from the party that initiated litigation.
Claims extinguishedGarmin exits without a merits ruling — but gains preclusion
Garmin Ltd., represented by Baker Botts LLP, achieves a complete exit from the litigation across all 19 accused product lines. Critically, the with-prejudice designation means Garmin cannot face the same claims again from CardiacSense on these products. Garmin did not need to obtain an invalidity or non-infringement ruling to secure this protection — the plaintiff’s own dismissal delivers it.
Preclusion securedPatent remains enforceable — third-party exposure persists
The dismissal does not adjudicate the validity or scope of US7980998B2. The patent remains active and enforceable against other parties. Competitors in the wearable fitness and cardiac monitoring space — particularly those whose products include physiological sensing capabilities — should treat this case as a signal that CardiacSense is an active enforcer, even if this specific action against Garmin concluded without a merits finding.
Patent still liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cardiacsense LTD | Company | Israeli wearable cardiac monitoring technology company — holder of US7980998B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Garmin, Ltd. | Company | Garmin Ltd. — global GPS and wearable fitness technology manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph J. Zito | Attorney | Counsel for Cardiacsense LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito Castellano | Law Firm | Representing Cardiacsense LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rachael D. Lamkin | Attorney | Counsel for Garmin, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Garmin, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Michigan Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal order tracks the plaintiff’s own Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and carries the with-prejudice designation — meaning the court accepted the dismissal as a final, preclusive resolution. The phrasing imposes no conditions on Garmin and reflects no court findings on infringement or validity. For CardiacSense, the order closes this enforcement avenue permanently against Garmin’s accused product lines; for Garmin, it provides issue-preclusion protection without requiring a successful 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 defence or claim construction victory.
US7980998B2 — Wearable Physiological and Cardiac Monitoring System
US7980998B2, filed under application number US12/382214, protects a wearable system designed for continuous physiological and cardiac monitoring. The patent sits at the intersection of medical-grade sensing technology and consumer wearable hardware — a domain that has grown enormously commercially with the proliferation of smartwatches incorporating heart rate, ECG, and blood-oxygen measurement. The application’s filing date positions it as an early-generation patent in the wearable health-monitoring space, predating the mass-market adoption of the technology it claims to cover.
For the wearable technology sector, US7980998B2 represents the type of foundational monitoring-system patent that can cut across multiple product lines simultaneously — as demonstrated by CardiacSense’s 19-product complaint against Garmin. Any manufacturer integrating continuous cardiac or physiological sensing into a consumer device should treat this patent as a potential exposure point. The patent’s survival through this litigation without an invalidity ruling means its claims remain untested by a court, preserving both enforcement potential and licensing leverage for CardiacSense against other market participants.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7980998B2?
If your company designs, manufactures, or sells wearable devices incorporating heart rate monitoring, ECG sensing, SpO2 measurement, or continuous physiological tracking, US7980998B2 warrants inclusion in any freedom-to-operate analysis. CardiacSense demonstrated a willingness to assert this patent against a major global player across an entire product portfolio. The absence of an invalidity ruling in this case means the patent’s claims have not been narrowed or invalidated by a court — it exits this litigation with full nominal scope intact.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7980998B2 against your specific product architecture, flag prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface related CardiacSense patent family members that may present parallel risk. For R&D teams building next-generation wearable health features, running this analysis before design finalisation is materially lower cost than a post-launch enforcement response. Use Eureka to generate a claim chart and competitive landscape in minutes.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7980998B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Wearable Health Monitoring Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving wearable physiological monitoring technology filed in U.S. federal district courts against consumer electronics manufacturers.
What this case signals for the wearable health-monitoring IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit after 448 days raises pointed questions for any wearable technology company with physiological sensing in its product roadmap.
Wearable cardiac monitoring patents remain an active enforcement vector
CardiacSense’s willingness to file against one of the world’s largest wearable manufacturers — targeting 19 products simultaneously — signals that US7980998B2 was viewed as commercially viable to assert. Other wearable OEMs with heart rate, SpO2, or ECG features should not treat this dismissal as a signal that enforcement pressure has eased.
With-prejudice dismissals often follow settlement — but the public record is silent
A plaintiff-initiated dismissal with prejudice after 448 days is consistent with a confidential licensing arrangement, though no such agreement is confirmed. Companies monitoring CardiacSense’s licensing activity should track subsequent filings and any SEC disclosures by either party for evidence of a financial resolution.
Cardiacsense v Garmin — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 13 August 2025 following a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by plaintiff CardiacSense LTD. A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars CardiacSense from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Garmin based on US7980998B2 for the accused products.
CardiacSense accused 19 Garmin products including the Forerunner 945 LTE, 955, 955 Solar, 965; Venu, Venu 2, Venu 2 Plus, Venu 2S, Venu 3, Venu 3S; fēnix 7; vívoactive 4 and 4S; Instinct 2 Series; Instinct 2X Solar Tactical Edition; and the epix Gen 2 Sapphire, epix Pro Gen 2 Sapphire, and epix Pro Gen 2 Standard editions.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not constitute a ruling on patent validity or infringement. The court issued no substantive findings on claim scope or prior art. US7980998B2 remains an issued, enforceable patent that CardiacSense may assert against parties other than Garmin for products not covered by this dismissal.
The public record does not confirm or deny a financial settlement. A plaintiff-initiated voluntary dismissal with prejudice after 448 days is consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement, but no such agreement has been publicly disclosed. Neither party’s filings in the public docket confirm the existence or terms of any deal.
US7980998B2, filed under application number US12/382214, is a United States patent held by CardiacSense LTD relating to wearable physiological and cardiac monitoring technology. The patent covers systems for continuous monitoring of physiological signals — the type of technology now widely incorporated into consumer smartwatches and fitness trackers with heart rate, ECG, and blood-oxygen measurement capabilities.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.