IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Kan.: Garmin’s summary judgment bid fails to derail LoganTree patent dispute, (Sep 15, 2022)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Disagreement between the parties’ experts precluded summary judgment because the credibility of each expert was a matter for the jury, not the judge, to decide.

Smartwatch manufacturer Garmin International was not entitled to summary judgment that its accused products did not infringe a paten owned by LoganTree LP, the federal district court in Wichita, Kansas, has ruled. Garmin also failed to adduce evidence to show that the asserted patent was invalid for indefiniteness. The case presented a classic battle of experts, and the credibility of each expert was an issue that could not be resolved prior to a trial on the merits (LoganTree LP v. Garmin International, Inc., September 14, 2022, Melgren, E.).

LoganTree, LP (LoganTree) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (the ’576 patent), which claimed devices for monitoring and training an individual’s physical activity. LoganTree asserted that Garmin International, Inc. (Garmin) literally and directly infringed the ’576 patent through sale of 41 models of Garmin’s smartwatch products. Garmin moved for summary judgment, claiming that it did not infringe and that the ’576 patent was indefinite.

Infringement. Garmin sought summary judgment of non-infringement, arguing that the accused products do not store time stamp data when the user achieves a user-defined step goal, and that even if they do store a time stamp they don’t record that time stamp on a second basis, all of which would amount to infringement under the court’s earlier claim construction order. Garmin argued that it did not store time stamps upon achievement of goals, but instead stored time stamps at pre-determined intervals. LoganTree’s expert, however, opined that Garmin did practice this claim limitation and that Garmin misstated the court’s claim construction. The parties’ experts also disagreed about whether the accused products stored time stamps on a per-second basis or minute basis. The court held that as this was a classic “battle of experts” situation, there was clearly a question of fact to be determined at trial and the credibility of each expert was a matter for the jury. Summary judgment was denied.

Indefiniteness. Garmin argued that the patent was indefinite because LoganTree made inconsistent statements as to what the claim language “unrestrained movement in any direction” meant, pointing out that it was absurd for LoganTree to claim the Garmin products, which measured fewer directions and with less free movement than the prior art LoganTree attempted to argue around in patent prosecution, could possibly infringe while those prior art products did not. The court held that indefiniteness was a matter of inconsistent statements made during patent prosecution, not a matter of comparing statements made in litigation to those made during patent prosecution. The court denied summary judgment on the ground of indefiniteness.

The Case is No. 6:17-cv-01217-EFM.

Attorneys: Clayton J. Kaiser (Foulston Siefkin LLP) for LoganTree LP. Adam P. Seitz (Erise IP, PA) for Garmin International, Inc.

Companies: LoganTree LP; Garmin International, Inc.

Cases: Patent KansasNews