CardiacSense v. Google: Wearable Health Patent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
Israeli medtech IP holder CardiacSense Ltd filed suit against Google LLC in December 2024, asserting cardiac monitoring patent US7980998B2 against the Fitbit Charge 5, Fitbit Charge 6, Pixel Watch 2, Pixel Watch 3, and related Google wearables. The case closed just 130 days later following a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Cardiac Wearable Patent Clash Between CardiacSense and Google
CardiacSense Ltd, an Israeli developer of wearable cardiac monitoring technology and holder of US7980998B2, filed suit against Google LLC in the Western District of Texas on 6 December 2024. The asserted patent covers a wearable system for continuous physiological and cardiac monitoring — technology directly relevant to the Fitbit Charge 5, Fitbit Charge 6, Fitbit Versa 4, Google Pixel Watch 2, Google Pixel Watch 3, and the broader Google wearable ecosystem. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, a judge nationally known for patent litigation and historically favoured by plaintiffs for his Waco docket.
On 15 April 2025, the court instructed the Clerk to close the case following CardiacSense’s voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a unilateral right exercisable by the plaintiff before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The verdict entry does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Under Rule 41, a first-time voluntary dismissal without explicit stipulation is presumed without prejudice, but the public docket does not confirm this definitively. No fee award or cost ruling was recorded.
The 130-day lifespan — from filing to closure — is notably short even by early-dismissal standards. Google retained six attorneys across two firms, including Desmarais LLP and Slayden Grubert Beard, suggesting a well-resourced defense response was mounted swiftly. The rapid resolution most plausibly reflects either an early licensing discussion, a strategic reconsideration by CardiacSense of venue or claim strength, or the commencement of parallel proceedings. What remains unknown is whether CardiacSense intends to refile in this or another jurisdiction, and whether any commercial arrangement was reached between the parties.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 130 days
130 days — closed well under the typical 18–24 month district court lifecycle
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the most procedurally straightforward exit available. CardiacSense exercised this right unilaterally — no judicial merits determination was made, and no adverse ruling was recorded against either party. The case ends at the plaintiff’s election, not by judicial decree.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal is presumed without prejudice under the Federal Rules unless the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same claim — the so-called ‘two dismissal rule’. The court’s closing order does not specify either way. This distinction is commercially significant: a dismissal without prejudice preserves CardiacSense’s right to refile US7980998B2 claims against Google’s wearable products in the future; one with prejudice would extinguish them. The public docket does not resolve this question.
Prejudice status unconfirmedDefense ends without a win on the merits — but risk remains
Google secured no invalidity ruling, no non-infringement determination, and no fee award. Its six-attorney defense team (Desmarais LLP + Slayden Grubert Beard) assembled quickly but the case closed before substantive motions. If the dismissal was without prejudice, CardiacSense retains full optionality to refile. Google’s wearable product line — Fitbit Charge 5/6, Versa 4, Pixel Watch 2/3 — remains exposed to the same patent until US7980998B2 is invalidated or a licence is secured.
Patent exposure unresolvedWearable health monitoring IP remains a live litigation frontier
The rapid exit without settlement disclosure is consistent with early-stage licensing negotiation or strategic repositioning by CardiacSense. US7980998B2 covers core physiological monitoring functionality embedded across an expanding class of consumer wearables. Google’s Fitbit and Pixel Watch ecosystem represents a high-volume commercial target. For the broader sector — Apple, Samsung, Garmin — this case signals that cardiac monitoring IP from specialist medtech holders continues to be actively monetised against consumer wearable OEMs.
Wearable cardiac IP risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cardiacsense LTD | Company | Wearable cardiac monitoring medtech IP holder — holder of US7980998B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Google, LLC | Company | Google LLC — developer of Fitbit wearables and Pixel Watch health monitoring devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Cardiacsense LTDSearch 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito | Law Firm | Representing Cardiacsense LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Christopher Banner | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carson Olsheski | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David J. Shaw | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karim Z. Oussayef | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kurt Fredrickson | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marie Weisfeiler | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Desmarais LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s closing order is purely administrative — it records CardiacSense’s invocation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and directs the Clerk to close the file. No merits findings, claim constructions, or validity rulings were issued. The absence of a prejudice specification in the order is the most legally consequential ambiguity: it leaves open whether CardiacSense may refile identical infringement claims against Google’s Fitbit and Pixel Watch product lines. Both parties emerge without a judicial determination, but Google bears continued patent exposure.
US7980998B2 — Wearable Cardiac and Physiological Monitoring System
US7980998B2, filed under application number US12/382,214, covers a wearable system designed for continuous cardiac and physiological monitoring. The patent protects methods and apparatus for detecting, processing, and transmitting physiological signals — including cardiac data — from a body-worn device. This class of technology sits at the intersection of medical-grade biosensing and consumer wearable electronics, covering functionality now central to mainstream smartwatch and fitness tracker product lines.
The strategic significance of US7980998B2 lies in its potential claim coverage over optical and electrical biosensor systems used in high-volume consumer wearables. Google’s Fitbit Charge 5, Charge 6, Versa 4, and Pixel Watch 2 and 3 all incorporate PPG-based heart rate and ECG-adjacent functionality — precisely the category this patent targets. For the broader wearable sector, a patent of this scope in the hands of an active medtech IP holder represents a recurring enforcement risk, particularly as cardiac monitoring becomes a standard feature across mid-range and premium wearables from Apple, Samsung, and Garmin.
Should you run an FTO against US7980998B2?
Any R&D team or product manager shipping wearable devices with continuous cardiac monitoring, heart rate sensing, or ECG-adjacent features should treat US7980998B2 as an FTO priority. This case confirms that CardiacSense is prepared to enforce this patent against leading consumer wearable OEMs in US federal court. Even with the voluntary dismissal, the patent remains in force and the public record does not confirm any licence or covenant-not-to-sue was granted to Google.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US7980998B2 against your device’s biosensor architecture, identify prosecution history estoppel, surface related continuations or divisionals in CardiacSense’s portfolio, and flag prior art relevant to validity challenges. Whether you are launching a new wearable platform or expanding cardiac monitoring features in an existing product line, a targeted FTO against this patent family is a defensible first step.
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 US District Courts
Cases involving cardiac and physiological monitoring patents asserted against consumer wearable OEMs in the Western District of Texas and comparable US venues.
What this case signals for the wearable health monitoring IP landscape
A fast voluntary dismissal against a well-resourced defendant raises more questions than it answers — and the uncertainty matters commercially.
Judge Albright’s docket remains a magnet for wearable health IP cases
The Western District of Texas under Judge Albright is a known plaintiff-friendly venue. CardiacSense’s choice to file here signals deliberate forum selection. Even with a voluntary dismissal, the docket choice indicates CardiacSense views its patent as enforcement-ready. Competitors in the health wearable space should monitor for refiling activity in Waco or alternative venues including Delaware.
Google’s six-attorney response suggests aggressive early defense posture
Retaining Desmarais LLP alongside Slayden Grubert Beard within 130 days indicates Google treated this as a priority threat, not a nuisance suit. That resource commitment — before any answer was even filed — may itself have influenced CardiacSense’s dismissal calculus. Plaintiffs assessing cardiac monitoring patent suits against major tech defendants should anticipate well-funded, rapid-response defense teams.
Cardiacsense v Google — key questions answered
CardiacSense asserted US7980998B2 (application no. US12/382,214), a patent covering a wearable system for continuous cardiac and physiological monitoring. The accused products included the Fitbit Charge 5, Fitbit Charge 6, Fitbit Versa 4, Google Pixel Watch 2, Google Pixel Watch 3, and related Google wearable devices.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the voluntary dismissal. CardiacSense exercised its right under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Google filed an answer. Possible explanations include early licensing discussions, strategic reconsideration of venue or claim strength, or preparation for parallel proceedings. No settlement terms or licence were publicly disclosed.
The court’s closing order does not specify. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a first voluntary dismissal is presumed without prejudice unless the same claim has been previously dismissed by the plaintiff — the ‘two dismissal rule’. However, the public docket does not confirm the prejudice status definitively in this case.
Google was represented by six attorneys across two firms: Desmarais LLP and Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC. Named attorneys of record include Brian Christopher Banner, Carson Olsheski, David J. Shaw, Karim Z. Oussayef, Kurt Fredrickson, and Marie Weisfeiler.
The Western District of Texas, under Judge Alan D. Albright, is one of the most frequently chosen venues for patent infringement cases in the United States, known for case management pace and historically favourable plaintiff statistics. CardiacSense’s choice of this court suggests deliberate forum selection strategy, consistent with an enforcement-oriented IP posture.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.