Strava’s multifaceted legal (and social media) attack on Garmin was short-lived. Just 21 days after filing the original patent infringement case, alongside a Reddit post from their executive team attacking Garmin, the company has decided to dismiss the case against Garmin.
Court filings indicate that earlier today (Tuesday, Oct 21st), Strava filed paperwork to voluntarily dismiss the case entirely. The case, which covered two patent infringements (covering heat map routing pieces, as well as Strava Live Segments), had requested the court to halt the sales of offending Garmin products (effectively all wearable and bike computers).
The filing today by Strava is incredibly brief, just a single line, stating:
“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Strava, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned action, without prejudice. “
In looking the case history, there were no filings/responses by Garmin over the 21 days, except for today, when Garmin formally listed their attorneys of record on the case, tied to the then dismissal of the case. Said differently, everything basically happened behind the scenes.
The Details:
The case was baffling to many in the industry, both from a technical and legal standpoint. From a technical standpoint, it didn’t appear to hold very much water, especially on the heat map side. And on the segments side, was seen as a potentially risky way for Strava to get their patents invalidated.
But more critically, the case brought enormous risks for Strava. Garmin is Strava’s most important partner, and the single biggest 3rd party source of customer revenue (meaning, Garmin customers are the biggest slice of paid Strava subscriptions). Further, Garmin’s data (paid subscriber or otherwise), fuels massive portions of Strava’s platform from a route standpoint. If Garmin were to shut off that connection, it would almost immediately spell the end of Strava (in astonishingly quick succession).
There’s much speculation on the reason Strava decided to sue Garmin, with some speculating it was due to Strava’s upcoming IPO (slated for 2026), and trying to assert patent rights, demonstrating they have an intellectual property library to generate revenue from. The problem was, they (bafflingly) choose their single biggest and closest historical partner to test this theory, and then selected questionable patents, and atop all that, did it in the riskiest way possible.
But Strava somehow ignored the fact that Garmin almost never loses patent battles. It’s actually rather astonishing how well Garmin defends against patent infringement claims over the last 10-15 years. Further, in this case, Garmin has a massive patent library of its own (dwarfing Strava’s roughly 20 patents), from which to counter-sue. It’s almost certain that Strava would have infringed somewhere there, even if entirely accidentally.
However, beyond all that, Strava miscalculated on how much, as one insider put it “Garmin isn’t going to blink”. Especially in light of Suunto filing a patent infringement case against Garmin roughly a week prior (that case is much different than Strava’s, and seems to be very much focused on extracting money). Specifically, had Garmin decided to settle, it would send a message that it was open season. But by effectively requiring Strava to file this case as a voluntary dismissal, it essentially tells the rest of the legal world that Garmin came back to the table with Strava and essentially said: ‘We’re now going to outline how we will systematically and legally disembody you in the most painful way possible, as a company, unless you drop this lawsuit’.
What Happens Next:
This is where things get infesting. To begin, at a partnership standpoint, Strava entirely effed itself here. They had the closest possible relationship with Strava, for the better part of 15 years. And they not just burned that bridge, but the entire city around it. We’ve already seen Garmin announce new integrations with Komoot (and Strava competitor) over the past two weeks.
Next, there’s the executive team at Strava. To say they ‘hosed up’ would be the understatement of the year here. While some speculate the plan was always to dismiss, and use it as marketing for the IPO, I don’t buy that. Because while it drew attention to the IPO, it also drew attention to the incredible risks (and now repercussions) of this move. At the end of the day, Strava killed their most important relationship, while driving that partner to their competitors. And that ignores the angry customers (the people actually paying Strava). The only signal this sent, was that Strava’s management team is unable to manage this business into the future, let alone a massive IPO.
As to how the relationship between Garmin & Strava goes forward? Who knows. Time does heal most things, but one has to remember that most employees at Garmin are lifers. Literally. The people at Garmin in the executive teams (and down to the partnership teams) have literally been there since before Strava existed, working their way up the chain. They know every bit of history, and certainly don’t forget.
Whether not Strava though, can learn from history? That’s a bigger question.
With that, thanks for reading!
FOUND THIS POST USEFUL? SUPPORT THE SITE!
Hopefully, you found this post useful. The website is really a labor of love, so please consider becoming a DC RAINMAKER Supporter. This gets you an ad-free experience, and access to our (mostly) bi-monthly behind-the-scenes video series of “Shed Talkin’”.
Support DCRainMaker - Shop on Amazon
Otherwise, perhaps consider using the below link if shopping on Amazon. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn’t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot. It could simply be buying toilet paper, or this pizza oven we use and love.
Surprise…. “voluntarily” aka “just realized that it is stupid and we will loose”….
Strava is just… entertaining.
I’d love to have been there just to see the colour drain from Strava’s legal team as their utter destruction was painted in excruciating detail. This was a clown show move and may have doomed their company…even though it’s a company that almost nobody would likely miss very much. I, for one, am stoked by the closer ties to Komoot. Maybe they’ll even address indoor rowing properly (a man can dream).
It’s times like these companies find out who the yes-people are in their executive because anyone in legal, marketing, technical or partner relationships who didn’t strongly advise against the original suit is either very bad at their job or total sycophants…
This whole case made me cancel my Strava subscription and I don’t thing I’ll be going back any time soon.
I was the same, cancelled my subscription, I am not about to support frivolous law suites.
Strava just Found Out that it’s not a good idea to antagonise your primary source of data.
All Garmin has to do now is invest heavily in making its Connect app more social-focused and Strava will die a slow death.
That would mean non-Garmin customers being able to sync their data *from other watches* to Garmin Connect, and I don’t see that happening at all.
Garmin can try all they want, they already did over the years, with groups, connections, segments, news feed. It does not matter how much they improve, they will never manage because they are a closed platform for their own devices. A social platform needs broad availability.
No chance of Garmin making any of its software or UIs appealing or easy to use, as that would be counter to everything they’ve done before.
I became a paying customer to Strava many years ago to support the Live Tracking safety feature. I run with a Garmin device. This legal stoush was the straw that saw me cancel my recurring Strava subscription.
I imagine the Garmin lawyers were like Beth from Yellowstone in the first episode when she outlines to a business man how she is going to destroy his company. Would’ve loved to see that. Really hope Garmin now take their ball home and leave Strava hanging.
> To begin, at a partnership standpoint, Strava entirely effed itself here. They had the closest possible relationship with Strava, for the better part of 15 years.
Apparently “with Garmin”?
“This is where things get infesting.” = interesting?
I´m not a native speaker, but infesting seems… wrong here.
But on-topic: I dropped my paid Strava subscription years ago… was a good decision
Yeah, and the next sentence has also 2x Strava in it, when the 2nd should be Garmin. Ray is testing if we really read the article ☺
“Voluntarily” ☺ Sure.
Anyway – I deleted my account.
Did you add the picture of the Garmin headquarter twice on purpose?
“They had the closest possible relationship with Strava, for the better part of 15 years”
Surely you meant Garmin here?
Any idea what’s happening with the Suunto case?
Well, this is certainly an anticlimactic ending.
I can’t really see how as an executive team ever thought this was a good idea if it was aimed to push the IP portfolio. If they did push it I would question the viability of the executive team if I was looking at investing in the IPO. The other option is the Executive team weren’t aware what the lawyers were doing and again who is in control of the company? Seems rather amateur. Would it not be a win-win for Garmin if they bought Strava? It can’t be that valuable? They would end up with all the paid subscriptions they’ve been looking to gain.
Strava, the gift that keeps on giving
In the meantime, Strava has lost many users.
This one needs a major proof read. That aside, although Strava have clearly got this completely wrong, Garmin need a bit of attention. They are forcing users in to their ecosystem and it’s not the ‘open standards’ Garmin of old. They seem immune from criticism even though they are making life very difficult for a lot of 3rd parties and users that don’t want Garmin ‘everything’.
Hi,
What a show. I believe you had a reference error in the sentence: They had the closest possible relationship with Strava, for the better part of 15 years. -> probably should be Garmin?
To me the big question is that how on Earth did Strava end up in this situation? No sensitivity analysis what so ever? In which scenario this would have landed well for them?
I drew my own conclusions and cancelled my subscription when Strava had their API gate and seems like it was the right call.