A lot of the Intellectual Property world, for example trade mark agent firms and patent attorney firms, busies itself establishing intellectual property rights. Often, these firms’ customers are commercial companies or individuals seeking to develop their respective areas of businesses or obtain a degree of monopoly in their respective areas of business through the use of intellectual property. The intellectual property rights may be used to control, at least to an extent, activities of third parties in the respective areas of business, determined by the scope of rights provided by the intellectual property.
However, as is well known, IP rights may be sold or licensed to third parties. In a manner mutatis mutandis physical products, an owner of intellectual property may engage in negotiations with a potential buyer, wherein the owner offers the intellectual property as consideration to the buyer, for example for a time-limited period or a full temporal extent of the intellectual property, in return for payment or other consideration, for example in a cross-licensing situation.
Superficially, aforesaid seems a straightforward transaction. In reality, matters are very much more complex, requiring detailed investigations to be made.
The intellectual property rights need to have commercial relevance, namely they need to have within their scope of legal rights something of commercial value. For example, in the case of patent rights, patent claim scope needs to include at least one essential element that matters commercially to the buyer. As a further example, in the case of trade mark rights, the trade mark needs to impart a benefit to the buyer, for example providing an indication of verification of quality or origin when used in the course of business.
The owner of the intellectual property rights may not necessarily know the value of its intellectual property. In order to determine the value requires market research, analysis of likely benefit of the intellectual property rights to the buyer, as well as an assessment of whether or not the technology to which the intellectual property rights relate is soon to become obsolete or superseded by newer technological innovations.
A further consideration is that governmental intellectual property offices are not infallible, as they are implemented by human beings. For example, during patent substantive examination, patent offices are usually very effective at searching patent literature, but are often less effective when assessing the prior art significance of scientific papers that may often be very diffuse and indeterminate in their subject matter. The ownership of the intellectual property being correctly in the name of the owner also needs to be verified for due diligence purposes.
In the case of trade marks, there is a need to verify that there is not a risk of a given trade mark right being cancelled as a result of acquiescence, namely non-use in the course of business within a five-year period.
The aforesaid detailed investigations cost resources to implement, wherein the amount of due diligence implemented needs to have a bearing on the sales value of the intellectual property to the buyer. In other words, the thoroughness and extent of the investigations, and hence the cost of due diligence required to be implemented, has to be reasonably compromised to a degree that makes the intellectual property attractive to the buyer. Thus, a balance has to be struck when undertaking the investigations.
In the intellectual property field, there are “patent trolls” who amass large portfolios of patents, wherein the individual value of patents in the portfolios is aggregated in amongst other patents. However, experience has shown that many patents are relatively worthless, whereas specific individual patents may be key assets. For example, one of Nokia’s most valuable patents was “keyboard lock” for mobile telephones, namely a simple invention to understand but greatly appreciated by users of the mobile telephones.
At V24, we have many years of experience providing detailed investigations to support the sale of intellectual property. We understand both the intellectual property aspect as well as the market aspect. Conventional trade mark agent firms and patent attorney firms tend not to be interested in providing such detailed investigations, as it requiresd skills in commercial markets rather than merely intellectual property law. Thus, V24 is able to provide you with a fully comprehensive service, both in respect of establishing intellectual property rights as well as evaluating their commercial relevance, sale and licensing value.
", "content_text": "Overview\n\nA lot of the Intellectual Property world, for example trade mark agent firms and patent attorney firms, busies itself establishing intellectual property rights. Often, these firms’ customers are commercial companies or individuals seeking to develop their respective areas of businesses or obtain a degree of monopoly in their respective areas of business through the use of intellectual property. The intellectual property rights may be used to control, at least to an extent, activities of third parties in the respective areas of business, determined by the scope of rights provided by the intellectual property.\n\nHowever, as is well known, IP rights may be sold or licensed to third parties. In a manner mutatis mutandis physical products, an owner of intellectual property may engage in negotiations with a potential buyer, wherein the owner offers the intellectual property as consideration to the buyer, for example for a time-limited period or a full temporal extent of the intellectual property, in return for payment or other consideration, for example in a cross-licensing situation.\n\nSuperficially, aforesaid seems a straightforward transaction. In reality, matters are very much more complex, requiring detailed investigations to be made.\n\nThe intellectual property rights need to have commercial relevance, namely they need to have within their scope of legal rights something of commercial value. For example, in the case of patent rights, patent claim scope needs to include at least one essential element that matters commercially to the buyer. As a further example, in the case of trade mark rights, the trade mark needs to impart a benefit to the buyer, for example providing an indication of verification of quality or origin when used in the course of business.\n\nThe owner of the intellectual property rights may not necessarily know the value of its intellectual property. In order to determine the value requires market research, analysis of likely benefit of the intellectual property rights to the buyer, as well as an assessment of whether or not the technology to which the intellectual property rights relate is soon to become obsolete or superseded by newer technological innovations.\n\nA further consideration is that governmental intellectual property offices are not infallible, as they are implemented by human beings. For example, during patent substantive examination, patent offices are usually very effective at searching patent literature, but are often less effective when assessing the prior art significance of scientific papers that may often be very diffuse and indeterminate in their subject matter. The ownership of the intellectual property being correctly in the name of the owner also needs to be verified for due diligence purposes.\n\nIn the case of trade marks, there is a need to verify that there is not a risk of a given trade mark right being cancelled as a result of acquiescence, namely non-use in the course of business within a five-year period.\n\nThe aforesaid detailed investigations cost resources to implement, wherein the amount of due diligence implemented needs to have a bearing on the sales value of the intellectual property to the buyer. In other words, the thoroughness and extent of the investigations, and hence the cost of due diligence required to be implemented, has to be reasonably compromised to a degree that makes the intellectual property attractive to the buyer. Thus, a balance has to be struck when undertaking the investigations.\n\nIn the intellectual property field, there are “patent trolls” who amass large portfolios of patents, wherein the individual value of patents in the portfolios is aggregated in amongst other patents. However, experience has shown that many patents are relatively worthless, whereas specific individual patents may be key assets. For example, one of Nokia’s most valuable patents was “ keyboard lock ” for mobile telephones, namely a simple invention to understand but greatly appreciated by users of the mobile telephones.\n\nAt V24, we have many years of experience providing detailed investigations to support the sale of intellectual property. We understand both the intellectual property aspect as well as the market aspect. Conventional trade mark agent firms and patent attorney firms tend not to be interested in providing such detailed investigations, as it requiresd skills in commercial markets rather than merely intellectual property law. Thus, V24 is able to provide you with a fully comprehensive service, both in respect of establishing intellectual property rights as well as evaluating their commercial relevance, sale and licensing value.", "date_published": "2025-12-03T00:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-07T00:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Breaking News", "intellectual property", "IP strategy", "V24" ] }, { "id": "https://v24.vc/knowledge-hub/when-mum-and-dad-fight-what-strava-v-garmin-teaches-us-about-ip/", "url": "https://v24.vc/knowledge-hub/when-mum-and-dad-fight-what-strava-v-garmin-teaches-us-about-ip/", "title": "When Mum & Dad Fight: What Strava v. Garmin Teaches Us About IP", "summary": "Garmin vs. Strava isn’t just drama—it’s a masterclass in priority vs. prior art, co-build contracts, and why injunctions rarely end consumer tech fights.", "image": "https://v24.vc/assets/articles/when-mum-and-dad-fight-what-strava-v-garmin-teaches-us-about-ip.webp", "content_html": "I have trained for Ironman and ultras with a Garmin on my wrist and Strava in my pocket (Apple Watch Ultra now 🤫). For athletes, the pairing feels inevitable: Garmin captures, Strava connects. Which is why Strava’s lawsuit against Garmin landed like a thud on my feed. It isn’t just a platform spat; it’s a live case study in how patents, contracts, and product roadmaps collide—and what founders should do regarding intellectual property matters long before things get litigious.
The situation, quickly but precisely, is as follows. On 30th September 2025, Strava sued Garmin in the District of Colorado, alleging patent infringement and breach of a 2015 Master Cooperation Agreement (MCA). The patents Strava was seeking to assert fit neatly into two categories: the “Segments” machinery (US 9,116,922 patent) and the “user-preference activity maps” family that powers heatmaps and popularity-based routing (US 9,297,651 and 9,778,053 patents). Strava has also asked for an injunction, wherein “injunction” is legalese for “change your features or stop selling certain devices.” Garmin has not said much publicly. The docket and complaint confirm the contours, namely the substantive issues of the dispute.
The nuances that matter (and aren’t just headline fodder) are as follows. Partnerships like Strava–Garmin are stitched together by co-existence agreements—here, the 2015 MCA that let Strava Live Segments exist on Garmin devices under defined limits. Strava’s theory isn’t only “you infringed our patents”; it’s also “you went beyond the license.” If the MCA’s scope was tightly defined—think implementation detail, UI look-and-feel, and limits on reverse-engineering—then even a clean non-infringement defense won’t necessarily end the contract fight between Strava and Garmin. In other words, a dual track is arising in the dispute, which is why this case is bigger than one feature toggle.
The thorny part, namely the substantive issues in the dispute: prior art, prior use, and how “we did it first” actually works.
Everyone’s instinct is to point to screenshots and release notes. The law is fussier about proof and evidence—and the dates matter in legal proceedings. Strava’s Segments patent family traces back to year 2011; the heatmap/popularity routing family claims December 2013 priority. Meanwhile, Garmin had city heatmaps in Garmin Connect in early–to-mid 2013. If those heatmaps read on the asserted claims, that can be prior art under the America Invents Act, the raw material for invalidity arguments in district court or at the PTAB. Even if the patents survive, Garmin could try a separate prior-user-rights defense under 35 U.S.C. § 273, which—if proven—lets an earlier commercial user keep using the tech without knocking out the patent itself. None of that is automatic: claims are specific (Strava’s segments patent is about how you define and match to a segment—virtual start lines, orientation, MBR/R-tree indexing—rather than the general idea of a leaderboard), and “commercial use” is a high-evidence, fact-intensive showing. But the timeline gives Garmin real leverage.
Injunctions, when granted, reality check activity. Even if Strava proves infringement, U.S. courts don’t hand out permanent injunctions straight away. Since eBay v. MercExchange, a patent owner must clear a four-factor equity test; Winter does similar work for preliminary injunctions. In consumer tech with millions of users, judges often prefer money or a design-around over pulling the plug on core features. Translation: expect pressure, not necessarily product extinction.
The backdrop you can’t ignore. This suit arrived alongside a bruising policy shift: Garmin tightening API attribution rules—credit and logo where Garmin-sourced data appears—prompting visible friction with partners, Strava included. That isn’t in the complaint, but it explains the temperature and the timing.
My read on the likely path is as follows. I don’t expect uploads to break; neither side wants to set their own users on fire, namely frustrate and annoy the users. The middle lane looks like Co-existence 2.0: crisper guardrails around “Garmin segments” vs. “Strava Segments,” attribution that both can live with, and (if Garmin believes its 2013 receipts are strong) either a settlement discount or a narrow design-around on the exact claim steps Strava asserts. If Garmin files intellectual property rights (IPRs) against the heatmap claims, we’ll know they’re confident the prior use pre-2013/2013 material is potent in the dispute.
Lessons for founders and product teams—learn the significance of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and related legal constructs before you need them. IP may not be susceptible to being established retrospectively if a dispute arises.
Firstly, it is advisable to secure one or more priority dates early. If your differentiation depends on data aggregation, matching logic, or ranking heuristics, file documentation such as patent applications early and keep the family alive with continuations as your product evolves. Strava’s position on segments is strongest where its patent claims capture specific matching mechanics, not just a general concept and the vibe of a leaderboard. The difference between “we invented the idea” and “we own these claim elements” is everything.
Secondly, it is advisable to control your disclosures. Public demonstrations, documents, and blog posts become someone else’s § 35 U.S.C. 102 prior art tomorrow. If you’re going to show an invention, ask yourself whether a provisional filing today buys you the runway you need for that marketing splash next week. If you opt for secrecy for your invention, maintain a clean trade secret record so that you have documentary proof of prior rights and prior use—reasonable measures, access controls, versioned documentation—because that’s the only way prior-user rights are even plausible later.
Thirdly, it is advisable to treat co-build contracts like surgical instruments. When you embed your feature in a partner’s hardware or app, your agreement is your moat: scope of license, no-reverse-engineering language, branding/attribution, and remedies if they clone around you. An MCA that fences implementation details—and says what happens when the fence is tested—can save years of grief and litigation (or price your settlement). The current case of Strava vs. Garmin is a live reminder.
Finally, assume injunctions are hard and plan potential design-arounds. If you assert, you may still end up negotiating economics around a defendant’s alternative feature that side-steps one or two claim elements. If you’re the defendant, invest early in a Plan B architecture so you’re not refactoring under a TRO. Courts, post-eBay/Winter, reward pragmatism.
My opinion regarding the aforesaid scenario? This resolves with a cross-license, sharper attribution rules, and a détente on who owns what experience on which device screens. The interesting long-term question is whether “popularity routing” becomes so generic across the category that only very specific data-pipeline claims remain enforceable. If that happens, the real defensibility shifts to distribution, network effects, and contracts—and to the next set of claims you file now for the features you’ll ship in 18 months.
Your turn: if you were counseling either side, would you double down on the patent case, push for PTAB first, or rush a negotiated line in the sand around segments and routing? And as a founder, what would you file—or keep secret—today so you’re not learning these lessons the hard way in 2027? V24 understands the issues that affect Strava vs. Garmin, and is able to help you effectively if you encounter a similar convoluted and complex dispute.
", "content_text": "Overview\n\nI have trained for Ironman and ultras with a Garmin on my wrist and Strava in my pocket (Apple Watch Ultra now 🤫). For athletes, the pairing feels inevitable: Garmin captures, Strava connects. Which is why Strava’s lawsuit against Garmin landed like a thud on my feed. It isn’t just a platform spat; it’s a live case study in how patents, contracts, and product roadmaps collide—and what founders should do regarding intellectual property matters long before things get litigious.\n\nThe situation, quickly but precisely, is as follows. On 30th September 2025, Strava sued Garmin in the District of Colorado, alleging patent infringement and breach of a 2015 Master Cooperation Agreement (MCA). The patents Strava was seeking to assert fit neatly into two categories: the “ Segments ” machinery (US 9,116,922 patent) and the “ user-preference activity maps ” family that powers heatmaps and popularity-based routing (US 9,297,651 and 9,778,053 patents). Strava has also asked for an injunction, wherein “injunction” is legalese for “ change your features or stop selling certain devices .” Garmin has not said much publicly. The docket and complaint confirm the contours, namely the substantive issues of the dispute.\n\nThe nuances that matter (and aren’t just headline fodder) are as follows. Partnerships like Strava–Garmin are stitched together by co-existence agreements—here, the 2015 MCA that let Strava Live Segments exist on Garmin devices under defined limits. Strava’s theory isn’t only “ you infringed our patents ”; it’s also “ you went beyond the license .” If the MCA’s scope was tightly defined—think implementation detail, UI look-and-feel, and limits on reverse-engineering—then even a clean non-infringement defense won’t necessarily end the contract fight between Strava and Garmin. In other words, a dual track is arising in the dispute, which is why this case is bigger than one feature toggle.\n\nThe thorny part, namely the substantive issues in the dispute: prior art, prior use, and how “ we did it first ” actually works.\n\nEveryone’s instinct is to point to screenshots and release notes. The law is fussier about proof and evidence—and the dates matter in legal proceedings. Strava’s Segments patent family traces back to year 2011; the heatmap/popularity routing family claims December 2013 priority. Meanwhile, Garmin had city heatmaps in Garmin Connect in early–to-mid 2013. If those heatmaps read on the asserted claims, that can be prior art under the America Invents Act, the raw material for invalidity arguments in district court or at the PTAB. Even if the patents survive, Garmin could try a separate prior-user-rights defense under 35 U.S.C. § 273, which—if proven—lets an earlier commercial user keep using the tech without knocking out the patent itself. None of that is automatic: claims are specific (Strava’s segments patent is about how you define and match to a segment—virtual start lines, orientation, MBR/R-tree indexing—rather than the general idea of a leaderboard), and “ commercial use ” is a high-evidence, fact-intensive showing. But the timeline gives Garmin real leverage.\n\nInjunctions, when granted, reality check activity. Even if Strava proves infringement, U.S. courts don’t hand out permanent injunctions straight away. Since eBay v. MercExchange, a patent owner must clear a four-factor equity test; Winter does similar work for preliminary injunctions. In consumer tech with millions of users, judges often prefer money or a design-around over pulling the plug on core features. Translation: expect pressure, not necessarily product extinction.\n\nThe backdrop you can’t ignore. This suit arrived alongside a bruising policy shift: Garmin tightening API attribution rules—credit and logo where Garmin-sourced data appears—prompting visible friction with partners, Strava included. That isn’t in the complaint, but it explains the temperature and the timing.\n\nMy read on the likely path is as follows. I don’t expect uploads to break; neither side wants to set their own users on fire, namely frustrate and annoy the users. The middle lane looks like Co-existence 2.0: crisper guardrails around “Garmin segments” vs. “Strava Segments,” attribution that both can live with, and (if Garmin believes its 2013 receipts are strong) either a settlement discount or a narrow design-around on the exact claim steps Strava asserts. If Garmin files intellectual property rights (IPRs) against the heatmap claims, we’ll know they’re confident the prior use pre-2013/2013 material is potent in the dispute.\n\nLessons for founders and product teams—learn the significance of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and related legal constructs before you need them. IP may not be susceptible to being established retrospectively if a dispute arises.\n\nFirstly, it is advisable to secure one or more priority dates early. If your differentiation depends on data aggregation, matching logic, or ranking heuristics, file documentation such as patent applications early and keep the family alive with continuations as your product evolves. Strava’s position on segments is strongest where its patent claims capture specific matching mechanics, not just a general concept and the vibe of a leaderboard. The difference between “we invented the idea ” and “ we own these claim elements ” is everything.\n\nSecondly, it is advisable to control your disclosures. Public demonstrations, documents, and blog posts become someone else’s § 35 U.S.C. 102 prior art tomorrow. If you’re going to show an invention, ask yourself whether a provisional filing today buys you the runway you need for that marketing splash next week. If you opt for secrecy for your invention, maintain a clean trade secret record so that you have documentary proof of prior rights and prior use—reasonable measures, access controls, versioned documentation—because that’s the only way prior-user rights are even plausible later.\n\nThirdly, it is advisable to treat co-build contracts like surgical instruments. When you embed your feature in a partner’s hardware or app, your agreement is your moat: scope of license, no-reverse-engineering language, branding/attribution, and remedies if they clone around you. An MCA that fences implementation details—and says what happens when the fence is tested—can save years of grief and litigation (or price your settlement). The current case of Strava vs. Garmin is a live reminder.\n\nFinally, assume injunctions are hard and plan potential design-arounds. If you assert, you may still end up negotiating economics around a defendant’s alternative feature that side-steps one or two claim elements. If you’re the defendant, invest early in a Plan B architecture so you’re not refactoring under a TRO. Courts, post-eBay/Winter, reward pragmatism.\n\nMy opinion regarding the aforesaid scenario? This resolves with a cross-license, sharper attribution rules, and a détente on who owns what experience on which device screens. The interesting long-term question is whether “ popularity routing ” becomes so generic across the category that only very specific data-pipeline claims remain enforceable. If that happens, the real defensibility shifts to distribution, network effects, and contracts—and to the next set of claims you file now for the features you’ll ship in 18 months.\n\nYour turn: if you were counseling either side, would you double down on the patent case, push for PTAB first, or rush a negotiated line in the sand around segments and routing? And as a founder, what would you file—or keep secret—today so you’re not learning these lessons the hard way in 2027? V24 understands the issues that affect Strava vs. Garmin, and is able to help you effectively if you encounter a similar convoluted and complex dispute.", "date_published": "2025-10-15T00:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-07-07T00:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Breaking News", "intellectual property", "IP strategy", "V24" ] } ] }