<em> Philips N. Am., LLC v. Garmin Int'l, Inc. </em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment as to the invalidity of the ‘007 patent’s claim construction, but vacated the motion for summary judgment for the ‘377 patent and remanded to the District Court.
Philips North America, LLC (“Philips”) designs health watches that allow users to track their heart rates, breathing patterns, physical activity, and sleep habits. Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. (collectively “Garmin”) design global positioning system (“GPS”) navigation devices for the “automotive, aviation, marine, outdoor, and fitness markets.” Garmin accounts for 15.8 percent of total industry revenue in the wearable device manufacturing industry.
The technology at issue in this appeal involves wearable fitness trackers (“smart watches”). Philips appealed the Central District of California’s judgments as to the invalidity of their claim construction for U.S. Patent No. 6,013,007 (the ‘007 patent), and that there was no infringement as to Philips’ asserted claims regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,277,377 (the ‘377 patent).
Two claims are relevant on appeal regarding the ‘007 patent, and each claim contains the term “means for computing athletic performance feedback data from the series of time-stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS receiver.” The parties dispute the interpretation of the phrase “athletic performance feedback data” as it relates to the entire term at issue. Philips argued that the phrase should be defined more narrowly, only encompassing the “elapsed distance of an athlete; current or average speed of an athlete; [or] current or average pace of an athlete.” However, the District Court agreed with Garmin that the phrase should be more broadly defined to also include “calories burned.” The District Court ultimately determined that the term was “indefinite for lack of corresponding structure” because the ‘007 patent did not “disclose an algorithm representing the corresponding structure.” Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The ’377 patent is described as “a method and apparatus ‘for wireless monitoring of exercise, fitness, or nutrition by connecting a web-enabled wireless phone to a device that provides exercise-related information, including physiological data [e.g., heart rate] and data indicating an amount of exercise performed.’” The ‘377 patent’s only limitation at issue was claim limitation 1(f)(ii), which provides, “wherein the data indicating a physiologic status of a subject is received at least partially while the subject is exercising.” Garmin devices have two categories of data: default mode and activity mode. Philips argued that Garmin’s default mode infringes on the ‘377 patent because data is uploaded in default mode while the wearer is not exercising. Ultimately, the District Court granted Garmin’s motion for summary judgment regarding the ‘377 patent.
On appeal, Philips argued that the District Court erred in too broadly construing the means-plus-function construction of the “athletic performance feedback data.” Philips asserted that algorithmic support is involved in computing “athletic performance feedback data” through distance, speed, and pace inputs, rather than more basic position calculations alleged by Garmin. The Federal Circuit agreed with the District Court that “athletic performance feedback data” should be understood as incorporating a broader set of data than just distance, speed, and pace because the ‘007 patent specification lists examples of such data that extend beyond distance, speed, and pace, which make it clear that the inventor intended the phrase to be read more broadly than just incorporating distance, speed, and pace.
With this broader construction, the Federal Circuit addressed the adequacy of the ‘007 patent structure regarding the term “means for computing athletic performance feedback data from the series of time-stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS receiver.” Philips argued that “a person of skill in the art” would understand the “athletic performance feedback data” of distance, speed, and pace as disclosing algorithmic support, but the Federal Circuit rejected this argument and affirmed the District Court ruling regarding the ‘007 patent.
Finally, the Federal Circuit considered whether the District Court erred in granting Garmin’s motion for summary judgment regarding the ‘377 patent. On this issue, the Federal Circuit Court concluded: “(1) a user wearing an accused device could exercise in default mode, (2) the record supports that an accused device would record data such as the user’s heart rate in default mode, and (3) the record supports that a sync could happen during the time that the user is exercising. This would be an act of direct infringement, precluding summary judgment on that ground.” The Federal Circuit remanded this issue to the District Court, stating that “Philips must prove that Garmin had specific intent to encourage another’s infringement” in order to succeed on the infringement claim.