Google LLC v. CardiacSense Ltd. — Split-Prejudice Dismissal in 99 Days
Google brought an infringement action against CardiacSense Ltd. in the Northern District of California asserting US7980998B2, a patent tied to cardiac sensing technology embedded in Fitbit Charge 5/6, Fitbit Versa 4, and Pixel Watch 2/3. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal in just 99 days — Google’s claims dismissed without prejudice, CardiacSense’s counterclaims dismissed with prejudice.
A rapid split-prejudice exit in a high-stakes wearable health patent fight
On 15 July 2025, Google LLC filed an infringement action against CardiacSense Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:25-cv-05897), presided over by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Google asserted US7980998B2, a patent covering cardiac physiological monitoring, against CardiacSense in connection with Google’s Fitbit Charge 5, Fitbit Charge 6, Fitbit Versa 4, Google Pixel Watch 2, and Google Pixel Watch 3 product lines.
On 22 October 2025 — just 99 days after filing — the parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing the entire action. The stipulation contains a notable asymmetry: Google’s own claims are dismissed without prejudice, preserving its right to re-file the same infringement action, while CardiacSense’s counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, permanently foreclosing those specific defenses or counter-assertions.
A resolution at this speed, before any substantive motion practice would typically conclude, is consistent with a negotiated commercial agreement reached shortly after filing. The split-prejudice structure is strategically significant — it suggests the parties may have settled on terms that protect Google’s future enforcement posture while foreclosing CardiacSense’s ability to revive counterclaims. The precise commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 99 days
99 days — well below the median district court patent case lifecycle of 2–3 years
Split-prejudice stipulation: what the asymmetric dismissal means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal by both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows parties to dismiss an action by filing a signed stipulation without court approval. This mechanism is commonly used when parties reach a private resolution and wish to close the docket without a judicial ruling on the merits. No finding of liability, validity, or infringement was made by the court.
No merits adjudicationGoogle’s claims out without prejudice — CardiacSense’s counterclaims gone permanently
The stipulation creates an asymmetric outcome: Google’s infringement claims are dismissed without prejudice, meaning Google retains the right to re-file against CardiacSense if circumstances warrant. CardiacSense’s counterclaims, however, are dismissed with prejudice — those specific claims cannot be reasserted. This structure is consistent with a settlement that favoured Google’s long-term enforcement posture.
Asymmetric finalityGoogle preserves future enforcement rights over US7980998B2
A without-prejudice dismissal of Google’s claims means US7980998B2 remains available as an enforcement tool against CardiacSense or other parties. Google has not conceded non-infringement or invalidity. Should the commercial relationship between the parties deteriorate, Google could theoretically re-file the same action, subject to any limitations period or estoppel arguments.
Patent remains enforceableWearable health IP remains live — rapid exit signals likely private deal
The 99-day lifecycle and split-prejudice structure are consistent with a licensing agreement or broader commercial arrangement reached shortly after suit was filed. For competitors and partners in the wearable cardiac monitoring space, US7980998B2 remains an active patent in Google’s portfolio. The case outcome does not invalidate or limit the patent’s claims.
Likely licensed or settledFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Google, LLC | Company | Global technology company — holder of US7980998B2 covering wearable cardiac monitoringSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CardiacSense Ltd. | Company | CardiacSense Ltd. — developer of wearable cardiac sensing technology and devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carson Olsheski | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John M. Desmarais | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karim Oussayef | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kurt Fredrickson | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marie Weisfeiler | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Desmarais LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for CardiacSense Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dnl Zito | Law Firm | Representing CardiacSense Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Beth Labson Freeman | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s phrasing is deliberately asymmetric. Google’s claims exiting ‘without prejudice’ preserves all future enforcement options under US7980998B2, while CardiacSense’s counterclaims being dismissed ‘with prejudice’ forecloses those specific arguments permanently. No court ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction was issued — the public record reflects a negotiated exit, not a judicial determination. The scope of any underlying commercial agreement remains undisclosed.
US7980998B2 — wearable cardiac physiological monitoring technology
US7980998B2 covers technology in the field of wearable cardiac physiological monitoring — the sensing and processing of cardiac signals by devices worn on the body. The patent was asserted in connection with Google’s Fitbit Charge 5, Fitbit Charge 6, Fitbit Versa 4, Pixel Watch 2, and Pixel Watch 3, indicating its claims are relevant to optical or electrical cardiac sensing integrated into consumer wearables. The application number US12/382214 suggests the patent has been in force for a substantial period.
For the wearable health technology sector, US7980998B2 represents a strategically significant asset in Google’s post-Fitbit acquisition IP portfolio. With Google deploying cardiac sensing across multiple product lines under both the Fitbit and Pixel Watch brands, this patent covers a technology layer that underpins competitive differentiation. Any company developing smartwatches, fitness bands, or medical wearables with ECG, PPG, or related cardiac sensing capabilities should assess whether their implementations fall within the scope of this patent’s claims.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7980998B2?
If your organisation is developing or commercialising wearable devices with cardiac monitoring features — including heart rate, ECG, PPG, or arrhythmia detection — US7980998B2 should be on your freedom-to-operate radar. This case confirms Google is actively enforcing the patent across consumer product lines, and a without-prejudice dismissal leaves the patent fully available for future actions against other parties in the wearable health space.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the claims of US7980998B2 against your product architecture, identify the relevant independent claims, and surface related patents in the same family or technology cluster. Eureka can also flag continuation applications that may extend the patent’s effective scope beyond the granted claims — critical intelligence before committing to a product launch in the cardiac wearables category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7980998B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: wearable health & cardiac sensing litigation
Cases involving wearable cardiac monitoring patents litigated in the Northern District of California and related federal venues, including Fitbit and Pixel Watch IP disputes.
What this case signals for the wearable health IP landscape
A 99-day split-prejudice exit in a patent suit involving Fitbit and Pixel Watch carries specific signals for cardiac monitoring IP strategy.
Split-prejudice dismissals signal settlement, not defeat for patent holders
When a plaintiff’s claims exit without prejudice while a defendant’s counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, it typically suggests the plaintiff secured commercially acceptable terms. Google’s enforcement posture over US7980998B2 appears intact — the patent was not invalidated, and no adverse claim construction was entered.
Wearable cardiac monitoring is a litigation-active technology domain
This case confirms that patents covering physiological sensing in consumer wearables are being actively enforced in the Northern District of California. Companies developing or licensing cardiac sensing features for smartwatches, fitness trackers, or medical wearables should treat this patent family as a live FTO risk.
Google v CardiacSense — key questions answered
The case was dismissed by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 22 October 2025, 99 days after filing. Google’s claims were dismissed without prejudice and CardiacSense’s counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice. No merits ruling was issued by the court.
Google asserted US7980998B2 (application number US12/382214), a patent covering wearable cardiac physiological monitoring technology. The patent was asserted in connection with the Fitbit Charge 5, Fitbit Charge 6, Fitbit Versa 4, Google Pixel Watch 2, and Google Pixel Watch 3.
A split-prejudice dismissal means different finality applies to different parties’ claims. Here, Google’s infringement claims exit without prejudice — preserving Google’s right to re-file — while CardiacSense’s counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, permanently foreclosing those specific arguments. This asymmetry is consistent with a negotiated resolution favouring the plaintiff.
No. The stipulated dismissal contains no finding on patent validity, infringement, or claim construction. US7980998B2 remains a granted, enforceable patent in Google’s portfolio. The without-prejudice dismissal of Google’s claims means the patent can still be asserted in future proceedings.
The litigation involved five Google consumer products: Fitbit Charge 5, Fitbit Charge 6, Fitbit Versa 4, Google Pixel Watch 2, and Google Pixel Watch 3. These products incorporate cardiac sensing features relevant to the claims of US7980998B2.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.