Patent used by Sportbrain in Apple Watch infringement suit under review by US Patent Offic...

Posted:
in Apple Watch
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has agreed to review the validity of a patent owned by Sportbrain Holdings relating to how wearable devices operate, shortly after the company sued Apple by alleging the Apple Watch infringes the patent.




The USPTO's patent appeals board is looking over 16 claims made by patent 7,454,002, describing a way for "integrating personal data capturing functionality into a portable computing device and a wireless communication device." Ars Technica reports the request to reexamine the patent was filed by "anti-troll" firm Unified Patents last year, as part of a campaign to take on one of the "three most prolific patent trolls" of 2016.

The patent itself concerns how a portable wireless or computing device is able to acquire personal data from sensors, such as the wearer's heart rate, with data transferred to a host device for storage, and possibly forwarded to a server. Generically, this effectively describes the functionality of most wearable devices on the market that include some fitness-monitoring capabilities, including the Apple Watch.

Starting in January last year, Sportbrain started suing device manufacturers, including Samsung, HP, Garmin, Fitbit, Pebble, and Nike. Software has also become a target for Sportbrain, with fitness app developers and insurance firm Aetna included in the list of more than 80 companies sued over the last year.

Sportbrain initiated legal proceedings against Apple on February 7 of this year, in the Illinois Northern District Court. In the suit, Sportbrain claims the iPhone's motion coprocessor and the Apple Watch can collect data about the user's movements, and periodically sends it to Apple's servers for analysis and feedback.

In the complaint, Sportbrain demands compensation, with pre and post-judgement interest, a trebling of the damages for willful infringement, awards for expenses and attorney's fees, and any other "further and additional relief" that the court sees fit to apply punitively.

On February 10, three days after Sportbrain's Apple lawsuit, the USPTO confirmed the patent review, noting two earlier patents are likely to have covered the aspects of collecting data and analyzing it on a web server included in the patent. A patent from 1999 filed by Nike mentions the collection of data from products, "such as an article of footwear," while Liquid Spark filed another patent for a GPS-based monitor in 1998.




If the patent is invalidated in the inter partes review (IPR) by the USPTO, it is likely that it would collapse Sportbrain's lawsuit against Apple, and other similar litigation efforts. IPRs are thought to be cheaper for parties to invalidate patents than by going through courts, with some or all of a patent's claims dismissed in the majority of IPR proceedings.

"This is a great example of a patent that we believe is invalid and never should have issued in the first place," Unified Patents CEO Kevin Jakel told Ars Technica.

At the time Sportbrain Inc. was issued the patent, the company sold a smart pedometer, an early example of a fitness tracker, one that used a "SportPort" to physically connect to a computer to transfer data. Following a change in ownership, company later tried selling the iStep X1 pedometer in 2004, but ultimately didn't find much success.

The patent in question was moved from Sportbrain Inc. to Sportbrain Holdings in January 2016, clearly in preparation for start of the myriad lawsuits.

gov.uscourts.ilnd.336364.1.0 by MalcolmOwen on Scribd


Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    Patent trolls are a disease that needs to be wiped out from existence ASAP, as they only cause harm to innovation in the name of lining their greedy pockets!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 9
    MacProMacPro Posts: 16,196member
    Patent trolls are a disease that needs to be wiped out from existence ASAP, as they only cause harm to innovation in the name of lining their greedy pockets!
    In the mean time, they should also he held responsible for all legal costs on both sides of all such cases if they lose, plus damages.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 9
    ktappektappe Posts: 702member
    Good for Unified Patents. They saw a dire need in the industry and started selling patent troll insurance. Looks like they have a bunch of big customers, including Apple. Because their policy is to "never pay", they are bound to be extreme attack dogs in court. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 9
    So basically they've "invented" the concept of a device capturing some sort of data, then storing it somewhere? Oh boy.
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 9
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,705member
    So basically they've "invented" the concept of a device capturing some sort of data, then storing it somewhere? Oh boy.
    Yup, they've patented the computer. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 9
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 118member
    At least this company actually had a product at some point (sort of)  - that's better than most of these trolls. But yeah - good for Unified Patents. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 9
    Copyright covers code. Patents of actual product-workings should be allowed. But patents for ideas (and patents for code) should not. It's the implementation of an idea that is the invention, not the idea itself.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 9
    What about if I patent a concept I have for a computer that can do stuff that no one has thought of yet, that should cover it. Then I will wait a few years and rake in the $$$'s. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 9
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,705member
    What about if I patent a concept I have for a computer that can do stuff that no one has thought of yet, that should cover it. Then I will wait a few years and rake in the $$$'s. 
    Yes, but in his case, they have a patent for something that has prior art dating back to 1837. 
Sign In or Register to comment.