Wrist SP Biotech, LLC v. Garmin, Ltd.
Infringement action filed 25 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 22 Sep 2023, with US9392970B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9392970B2
- Application no.
- US14/238005
- Case no.
- 6:23-cv-00628
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Fred Biery
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 25 Aug 2023 – 22 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 28 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Smartwatches – Fenix 6X
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Biotelemetry system
The invention provides a biotelemetry system for disposition on the wrist. The device of the invention may be portable, untethered and in some instances, disposable. The features of the wrist biotelemetry system make it effective in stable, chronic or emergency medical settings.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 19 Jul 2016
- Earliest priority
- 10 Aug 2011
- Est. expiry
- 6 Mar 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- VASTOLA, MARK
- Classification
- A61B5/1455A61B5/00A61B5/01A61B5/021A61B5/08A61B5/024
- Prosecution counsel
- DT Ward, PC
- Examiner
- WINAKUR, ERIC
Parties of record
Wrist SP Biotech, LLC
- Core tech
- A61B5/1455A61B5/00A61B5/01A61B5/021
- Counsel
- Joseph J. Zito · William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Dnl Zito Castellano, Ramey LLP
Garmin, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Megan LaDriere White
- Firm
- Baker Botts, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Joseph J. Zito | Wrist SP Biotech, LLC | Plaintiff |
| William P. Ramey III | Wrist SP Biotech, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Megan LaDriere White | Garmin, Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Voluntary Dismissal”
Case 6:23-cv-00628 · W.D. Tex. · closed 22 September 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 6:23-cv-00628?
6:23-cv-00628 is a patent infringement action brought by Wrist SP Biotech, LLC against Garmin, Ltd., filed on 25 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 22 September 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00628?
US9392970B2 (“Biotelemetry system”), assigned to WRIST SP BIOTECH, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Smartwatches – Fenix 6X.
How was case 6:23-cv-00628 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Voluntary Dismissal”
What does voluntary dismissal mean?
A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.
How long did case 6:23-cv-00628 take?
28 calendar days, from filing on 25 Aug 2023 to closure on 22 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00628?
Chief Judge Fred Biery presided. Joseph J. Zito and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Wrist SP Biotech. Megan LaDriere White appears for defendant Garmin.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00628 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.