Strava vs. Garmin: Branding, Patents And The Battle For Data Attribution

In the connected fitness world, the biggest rivalries aren't just on the leaderboard, they are increasingly playing out in the IP office and the courtroom. The recent dispute between Strava and Garmin is a prime example, revealing the complex dynamics of data ownership, branding and innovation in the sports tech industry.

The spark: A patent dispute

In early October, Strava filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Garmin, alleging unauthorised use of proprietary features such as Live Segments and Heatmaps - core elements of Strava's platform. The move signalled a potential full-scale fallout between two of the most influential players in fitness tracking.

The lawsuit raised immediate concerns among users, particularly Garmin device owners who feared their workout data might no longer sync with Strava. With millions relying on seamless integration between hardware and software platforms, the implications were significant.

Branding battle: Garmin's push for attribution

While the legal action made headlines, a parallel dispute over branding quietly escalated. Garmin had updated its API guidelines, demanding that its logo be displayed whenever data from its devices appeared on Strava or third-party apps. Strava initially resisted, arguing that such branding amounted to "blatant advertising" and could disrupt the user experience.

However, facing the possibility of losing access to Garmin's API, a move that would sever the data pipeline, Strava conceded. As of 1 November, Strava began displaying "Powered by Garmin" tags on activities recorded with Garmin devices. In a bid to maintain fairness, Strava also committed to providing similar attribution to all its device partners.

A strategic retreat

Just weeks after initiating legal proceedings, Strava filed a voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit against Garmin. While the dismissal was "without prejudice", leaving the door open for future legal action - it marked a clear shift in strategy. Rather than escalating the conflict, Strava chose to preserve its partnership with Garmin, prioritising platform continuity and user experience.

This move is particularly notable given Strava's rumoured plans for a 2026 IPO. The company may have used the lawsuit to assert its intellectual property rights and signal the value of its tech portfolio, but ultimately decided that collaboration outweighed confrontation.

Why this matters

Though it may appear to be a simple branding disagreement, the Strava-Garmin saga underscores deeper tensions in the tech ecosystem:

• Data wwnership: Who controls the data generated by wearable devices, the hardware maker or the platform that analyses and displays it?
• Attribution rights: As data flows across platforms, how should companies be credited for their contributions?
• IP enforcement vs. partnership: Protecting innovation through patents is vital, but aggressive enforcement can strain or sever valuable collaborations.

Garmin's assertiveness reflects a broader trend of tech companies safeguarding not just their devices, but also the representation of their data. Strava, meanwhile, is defending its software-driven innovations, including proprietary algorithms for mapping and performance analytics.

What's next?

For now, Garmin users can breathe easy, their workouts will continue syncing with Strava uninterrupted. But the underlying issues remain unresolved. If Strava revisits its patent claims, this could become one of the first major IP battles in the sports tech space, potentially setting precedents for how data-driven innovation is protected and shared.

Meanwhile, Garmin faces a separate patent suit from Suunto, another player in the wearables market, suggesting that the industry may be entering a new phase of legal and competitive tension.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.