#patent-litigation

#patent-litigation

Strava is suing its long-time partner Garmin, and is seeking to permanently block the company from selling most of its current fitness and cycling gadget lineup. The lawsuit filed in the US District Court of Colorado on September 30th, first reported by DC Rainmaker, alleges that Garmin violated an agreement between the companies by infringing on Strava's patents for segments - route sections where athletes can compare performance times - and heatmaps that show popular areas for activity.

Understanding U.S. patent litigation requires looking past raw filing numbers to the interplay of technology, strategic enforcement and the intrinsic strength of patents. Patent litigation trends provide critical insights into the evolving landscape of innovation, enforcement and intellectual property strategy. Understanding these trends is essential for companies, investors, and legal professionals who seek to manage risk, protect assets and navigate a complex legal environment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday reversing a district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement and vacating a damages award in favor of Finesse Wireless LLC. The CAFC said there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts finding AT&T Mobility and Nokia (AT&T) infringed two of Finesse's radio signal interference mitigation patents.

Federal Circuit has denied this pair of related mandamus actions. In both cases, the patentee VirtaMove challenged venue transfer orders moving its patent infringement suits from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. As I discuss below, the non-precedential decisions have some interesting jurisdictional tension with recent Fifth Circuit law. VirtaMove is a small Canadian software company holding patents on secure application containerization technology.

Oura secured a final legal victory in its patent dispute with Ultrahuman and RingConn last week. The US International Trade Commission's ruling asserts that the two competing smart ring brands infringed on Oura's patents to develop smart rings of their own. The ITC issued ceast-and-desist orders banning the two brands from importing and selling their smart rings in the US. This narrows the smart ring market's competition, taking two major competitors out of the game and giving Oura even more dominance in the wearables space.

The Federal Circuit panel indicated that the district court imposed an unjustifiably high standard on SAP in regard to specifying trial witnesses, though SAP's neutrality claim was upheld.