Pulseon OY v Garmin (Europe) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 138
This case concerned a claim by PulseOn for infringement of two registered Community Designs relating to wearable heart rate monitors. These monitors used photoplethysmography, a technology that involved transmitting light into the user’s skin, and picking up a reflected signal from which a pulse could be derived.
PulseOn claimed that a large proportion of Garmin’s wrist-mounted HRM devices infringed its designs. Those designs portrayed three LED apertures arranged around a rectangular oblong photo sensor aperture.
At first instance, that claim was rejected on the basis that the RCDs in issue were to be afforded a small scope of protection in light of their highly functional nature, and accordingly the differences between those designs and the design of the Garmin products were sufficient to give the latter a distinct overall impression.
PulseOn’s appeal involved four distinct grounds. First, it said the judge was wrong about design freedom. Second, it said the judge had erred in using enlarged 3D models for the infringement comparison. Third, that the judge had given undue weight to technical features. For, that the judge had applied the wrong test for infringement. The Court of Appeal dismissed all these grounds.
Hugo Cuddigan QC acted for Garmin at first instance and will appeal