Strava has demanded that Garmin stops selling devices, including all fitness watches and cycling computers, as it claims Garmin is infringing on two patents.
As first reported by DC Rainmaker, Strava has filed a lawsuit against Garmin over the alleged infringement of two patents, one around segments and the other around heatmaps/popularity routing.
Strava claims that it has “suffered damages, including lost revenue and business opportunities, erosion of competitive differentiation and network effects, harm to goodwill, and unjust gains to Garmin.”
However, Strava also stated that it “does not intend to take any actions that would disrupt the ability of Garmin users to sync their data with Strava and hope Garmin values our shared users in the same way.” How that’s possible if Strava is somehow successful in stopping Garmin from selling its devices we don’t know, but that’s what the social fitness giant is saying.
There are two components to the lawsuit, and Strava claims that Garmin broke a Master Cooperation Agreement from 2015.
The first component of the case claims that Garmin has violated patent 9297651 and ancillary patent 9778053. This covers what Strava refers to as “generate user preference activity maps”, or heatmaps that show where users work out based on user data.
The main patent was applied for on December 14th, 2014, and was issued in 2016. Strava claims that Garmin has violated this patent by copying it and putting it in its devices.
However, DC Rainmaker suggests that Garmin first started putting heatmaps in Garmin Connect in early 2013, starting with US cities.
The second component of the case covers patent 9116922, filed on 31 March 2011. This covers the concept of a Strava Segment.
Garmin launched its own segments, alongside the Edge 1000, in June 2014, which was expanded to other devices over the rest of the year. However, the popularity of Strava Segments led Garmin to sign an agreement on the 8th of April to implement Strava Live Segments on devices instead.
As part of this Master Cooperation Agreement, Garmin was supposed to stop expanding Garmin Segments and use Strava Segments instead.
The rather ambitious lawsuit come after Strava started to require third party apps to clearly label data as coming from Strava.
However, Strava didn’t do this for data coming from Garmin Connect via the API, leading to Garmin announcing a new Garmin Connect API policy in July 2025.
It’s also been claimed that Garmin does not support Strava using Garmin user data for its AI training, and that there is little control over it from a user perspective.
When approached for comment by DC Rainmaker, a Strava spokesperson said, “Garmin rejected Strava’s repeated attempts to address infringement informally, forcing Strava to take a stand on the matter and file suit to protect its patented inventions.
“Regarding timing, we reached out to Garmin repeatedly over a period of several months to resolve this amicably, and were rejected. Garmin has been increasingly aggressive to its partners lately (perhaps due to competitive pressure) and Strava is standing up for the hard work our teams have put into building unique features.”
road.cc has approached both Strava and Garmin for comment.
20 thoughts on “Strava demands that Garmin stops selling devices over alleged patent infringement”
Umm. Strava Gobal Revenues
Umm. Strava Gobal Revenues $500m Garmin’s is $6.3Bn. or about 12 times the size.
Guess who’s gonna get squashed like a bug?
They’ll probably settle quietly but most of this is because the US Patents system is a joke.
Garmin is valued at just
Garmin is valued at just under $50B, Strava at $2.2B – so the scale of difference is a lot bigger. Strava is looking at a stock market floatation so that might be a factor, their legal trying to resolve current issues before going to market. But the outline does make it sound like a weak case. Seems similar to the Wahoo suing Zwift case which took the Wahoo founder to finally return to the company and bang corporate legal heads that it was better to make deals than have an expensive case that which they might actually lose.
When you use a patent in court as evidence, under examination you can end up losing the patent. Finding out that you don’t exclusively own the assets on which you’re basing your valuation is not a good strategy for a stock market floatation.
Cases like this very rarely
Cases like this very rarely end in damages actually being paid. Most probably they will end up with a settlement about technology transfer or mutual permission to use each other’s data (which are in fact your data).
Also, the whole story is not about really trying to win any money. In large part it is a publicity stunt – it just sounds dramatic and in the public’s eye it puts Garmin in bad light as the one who can’t keep up and must resort to stealing others’ ideas.
I think it more puts Strava
I think it more puts Strava in a bad light especially in the fitness community, they are not exactly covering themselves in glory recently. I used to enjoy the subscription as it gave me access to Running (Yes I know) training palns but since their aquisition of Runna you now have to buy an additional subscrition (which isnt cheap). So I’ve forgone Strava subs for this reason, I found Garmins free training plans to be just as good.
My expectation is it will end
My expectation is it will end up with cross licencing or strava paying garmin.
1. Whether the patents are particularly enforcible. If it actually went all the way through courts, I expect that between prior art and obviousness (competent individual would provide solution given as standard way to do it; See how many software patents are using 2-3 algorithms from Knuth to solve problem in completely standard way… If you asked 50 CS first years half would give you the ‘patented’ solution)
In this case, how is route planning using weighting for heatmap (heatmaps which garmin had before strava) any different to route planning using weighting for speed limits…
2. Garmin probably has a warchest of patents (e.g. product was at one point a startup – they got sued on patent infringement. The outcome was as soon as big firm bought startup an agreement was made – for the suing company to cross licence and make payments because big firm could produce about 10 patents suing firm were using for every patent they were alleging startup was using…)
Garmin has been increasingly
Hmmm – reminds me of someone – now who could that be…?
Respect for intellectual
Respect for intellectual property is essential for innovation however as a customer choosing Garmin I don’t want to be obliged to have relationships with other companies at their decision. That’s not an ecosystem rather an oligarchy that feels entitled to own me..
This is interview is a good
This is interview is a good read – https://www.wired.com/story/yanis-varoufakis-technofeudalism-interview/
It’s more succinct than his book which feels rather like an essay stretched out to fulfill a contracutal obligation to his publisher.
Thanks for a thought
Thanks for a thought provoking read. I understand that we create cloud capital voluntarily on a platform like this because we have a shared interest though I reject that it’s fueled by hate. Most volunteers are wise enough to spot a troll and just want an informed conversation. I’d suggest that the quality of conversation is what brings us here not hatred. Perhaps Near Miss of the Day is click baity but not the reason to visit. Human stupidity is unending and most volunteers are already aware of that.
As to the data ownership and identification, he makes good sense. Government already knows that identification matters having NINO and TaxId for all employees. So the government gateway is their portal to be our cloud Lords using that identity. They haven’t made the interoperability step because they control government IT so can mandate the platform and cover edge cases like overseas working with the other tax authorities. It’s not expected that moving to another jurisdiction is frequent like changing Internet services providers or banks. I suppose that the logical conclusion of GDPR is identity and personal data portability across service providers including government.
The latest play in the immigration debate to have a digital identity for right to work checks is a trojan horse that inevitably leads to serfdom. I see no problem with HR making that check with the existing identity token, the Passport. That’s business as usual and sufficient to control that right. I’m much less happy to provide biometric data to the EU as is now required in lieu of Passport controls on entry/exit. Despite EU being the owner of GDPR, I’m not confident in the GDPR compliance of 27 countries Border Guards. Just too many failure opportunities to be credible that GDPR on my Special Personal Identity Information (Biometric) is safe…
Who cares where everyone else
Who cares where everyone else rides!? Whatever. …But if Strava (or anyone) could mandate that Garmin make the batteries replaceable in their cycling computers, that would be a real win! My $700 Edge530 is only 3 years old. Dead battery. They’re losing my business on ethical, environmental and financial grounds.
GravelIsNothingNew wrote:
Yes, it does suck, but luckily spare batteries are offered by independent sellers and the replacement itself is super easy to perform. Why don’t you try?
I’m afraid the question is: are they really? How many people could make it a deal breaker if the battery might die after 3 years vs how many people would by the product because it’s a bit cheaper owing to the savings on the battery?
Um Garmin have a battery
Um Garmin have a battery replacement program and the 530 was never $700.At launch it was $299.
Me thinks you are a troll.
Even in Australian fun
Even in Australian fun tickets it’s only $459
Yup, following my experience
Yup, following my experience with first Garmin Power pedals, then a TACX turbo trainer (Garmin now own the previously flawless TACX…) I’ll not be buying from them again, once the existing Garmin bits inevitably follow those to the Garmin junkyard, they won;t be replaced by anything garmin again. They’ve joined my no buy list along with Apple, Toyota, Tesco, and a number of other companies. Crap product is one thing (8months of use from pedals that cost hundreds of pounds), but joining that with crap customer service is as you say, unforgiveable
The latest Garmins have user
The latest Garmins have user replaceable batteries, as demonstrated by DCrainmaker. And as many others have posted, older Garmins can have their batteires replaced if you take care with connectors – and there are many third-parties who will do it for you.
While you may of course not
While you may of course not be in the UK, but if you are you could use these people to replace your Garmin’s battery – satnavspecialist.co.uk
First, the 530 was never $700
First, the 530 was never $700 it was released for $199 in 2019 and three years ago, shortly before the 540 was listed it cost around $250.
Even the newly released 550 does not hit the $700
Second, the new 550 and 850 have easy replacable batteries …
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi0ptgFaRdY
I use the Strava global
I use the Strava global heatmap to help plan routes, especially if I’m in an unfamiliar city with limited bike infrastructure. The roads where all the other cyclists [who use Strava] are riding on are probably safe and comfortable enough for me.
Who cares where everyone else
Who cares where everyone else rides!? Whatever. …But if Strava (or anyone) could mandate that Garmin make the batteries replaceable in their cycling computers, that would be a real win! My $700 Edge530 is only 3 years old. Dead battery. They’re losing my business.
Good news! The EU has
Good news! The EU has mandated this, and new models have user-replaceable batteries. https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2025/09/garmins-edge-550-850-user-servicable-battery.html