Garmin vs Strava: Why a Strange Patent Fight Over Segments and Heatmaps Landed in Court

The simmering relationship between two of the biggest names in the fitness technology sector – Garmin and Strava – has suddenly turned from collaboration to confrontation, landing in court in what many are calling one of the strangest disputes in recent tech history.

At the center of the conflict are Strava’s accusations that Garmin misappropriated its hallmark features: segments and heatmaps, tools that have defined how millions of athletes track and compare their performance online.

Strava’s lawsuit
Strava filed a formal complaint alleging that Garmin not only copied these features but also violated a Master Cooperation Agreement that once bound the two companies. That agreement, Strava claims, should have prevented Garmin from independently rolling out a heatmap-style feature on its own platform. By doing so, Strava argues, Garmin crossed a line from being a close partner to a direct competitor. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction that, if successful, could bar Garmin from selling devices and services equipped with segments or heatmaps – essentially striking at the heart of Garmin’s fitness tracking ecosystem, including its Connect software and a large share of its wearables lineup.

A puzzling dispute among long-time partners
The twist in this legal drama is that Strava and Garmin have enjoyed nearly a decade of collaboration. The two companies’ products are tightly integrated, allowing athletes to sync workouts seamlessly between platforms. For many, that close integration made the lawsuit a head-scratcher. Why would Strava suddenly raise issues now, especially since it claims the alleged infringements date back years?

Industry observers speculate the real tension might have less to do with intellectual property and more with branding and control. Strava’s Chief Product Officer, Matt Salazar, even took to Reddit to shed light on the company’s thinking. He pointed out that Garmin recently introduced new developer guidelines requiring API partners to display Garmin’s logo on virtually every post, chart, graph, and visual element that uses its data. Officially, Garmin frames this as a move to safeguard user data and maintain consistency across platforms. But from Strava’s perspective, it looks like Garmin is pushing its branding into territory Strava feels it cultivated and owns. This could explain why the company, after years of partnership, has chosen to escalate matters legally.

What this means for users
The biggest concern among athletes and fitness enthusiasts is whether this legal showdown will affect their daily routines. Both Garmin and Strava are deeply embedded in the way cyclists, runners, and triathletes train and share their data. Any disruption in syncing routes, segments, or heatmaps could frustrate customers who rely on the two platforms working smoothly together. While legal disputes of this nature often drag on, there is hope that the companies will reach a settlement before customers are caught in the crossfire.

Bigger picture: tech lawsuits as business strategies
Patent battles and IP disputes are nothing new in the technology world, but this one feels different. Rather than a simple matter of defending inventions, the case has shades of a broader turf war over who owns the digital community of athletes. Strava’s segments and heatmaps are not just features – they represent the culture of competition and social sharing that the brand has built. Garmin, on the other hand, has long dominated the hardware space, with its GPS watches and cycling computers serving as gateways into data-driven fitness. The courtroom clash, then, feels less about patents and more about who gets to control the narrative of connected fitness.

Ultimately, both companies know they need each other: Garmin’s hardware users flock to Strava for social motivation, while Strava relies on Garmin’s devices to feed its platform with data. For that reason, experts suggest the dispute may eventually resolve with a negotiated settlement rather than a full-scale trial. Until then, athletes and tech watchers alike will be paying close attention to whether this surprising legal battle reshapes the balance of power in the fitness tech industry.