Apple Watch GPS functionality target of latest Uniloc patent lawsuit
After a brief hiatus, patent troll Uniloc is back and looking to milk Apple for claimed damages and fees related to allegedly infringed patents, this time involving Apple Watch GPS functionality.
Filed in the patent holder friendly U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Uniloc's latest lawsuit alleges Apple is in infringement of an exercise monitoring system patent invented by Paragon Solutions.
Invented by Jack Stubbs, who served as president of Paragon from 2000 to 2014, U.S. Patent No. 6,736,759 for an "Exercise monitoring system and methods" was first filed for in 1999 and ultimately granted in 2004. The IP describes a basic health monitoring solution involving a physiological monitor with GPS location capabilities and separate wearable display.
Like most recent Uniloc filings, today's complaint involves IP that changed hands within the past few months. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the original Paragon patent was in July reassigned to a firm called Red Dragon Innovations, which transferred the property to Uniloc in August. Uniloc's assignment for Stubbs' patent application and grant was recorded on Oct. 2.
In its suit against Apple, Uniloc asserts the company's Apple Watch infringes multiple claims of the '759 patent, specifically those relating to geolocation capabilities.
The original Apple Watch relied on a paired iPhone's GPS receiver to pinpoint user location. With Apple Watch Series 2, GPS capabilities were brought onboard to power iPhone-free distance and pace monitoring features. Apple's latest Apple Watch Series 3 boasts an LTE radio, allowing for completely untethered location tracking.
Whether the '759 patent claims are applicable to Apple Watch and its various incarnations is unclear. The IP does detail a method of collecting GPS and physiological data, including heart rate information, via a wearable "acquisition unit" similar in scope to Apple's device. However, the IP deviates by splitting off the display unit as a separate module that can be worn on the body or mounted on exercise equipment.
With Apple Watch, the display, GPS radio, heart rate monitor and other necessary internal components are packaged in a single wearable chassis.
Today's complaint is the latest in a withering barrage of Uniloc lawsuits targeting Apple devices and technology. The non-practicing entity first filed suit against the iPhone maker in 2016 over four text messaging patents.
Earlier this year, Uniloc began a rapid fire assault, leveling patent infringement suits once every two or three weeks. The first of these more recent attacks came in April when the patent troll leveraged three patents against Apple Maps, Apple ID and remote software updates.
A suit in May used reassigned HP and 3Com IP to target AirPlay, autodialing and battery technology, while an action in June alleged infringement of IP developed by inventor Philippe Kahn. A month later, Apple was accused of infringing on three patents related to AirPlay and Continuity features.
Prior to today's complaint, Uniloc most recently filed suit against Apple in August, claiming the company's Apple TV Remote app for iOS infringes on a 3Com invention dating back to 1999.
Uniloc is one of the most active patent trolls in the U.S., leveraging reassigned patents or vaguely worded original IP against a number of tech firms including Activision Blizzard, Aspyr, Electronic Arts, McAfee, Microsoft, Rackspace, Sega, Sony, Symantec and more.
As with past complaints filed against Apple, Uniloc in today's lawsuit demands a court trial and seeks unspecified damages, reimbursement of legal fees and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Filed in the patent holder friendly U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Uniloc's latest lawsuit alleges Apple is in infringement of an exercise monitoring system patent invented by Paragon Solutions.
Invented by Jack Stubbs, who served as president of Paragon from 2000 to 2014, U.S. Patent No. 6,736,759 for an "Exercise monitoring system and methods" was first filed for in 1999 and ultimately granted in 2004. The IP describes a basic health monitoring solution involving a physiological monitor with GPS location capabilities and separate wearable display.
Like most recent Uniloc filings, today's complaint involves IP that changed hands within the past few months. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the original Paragon patent was in July reassigned to a firm called Red Dragon Innovations, which transferred the property to Uniloc in August. Uniloc's assignment for Stubbs' patent application and grant was recorded on Oct. 2.
In its suit against Apple, Uniloc asserts the company's Apple Watch infringes multiple claims of the '759 patent, specifically those relating to geolocation capabilities.
The original Apple Watch relied on a paired iPhone's GPS receiver to pinpoint user location. With Apple Watch Series 2, GPS capabilities were brought onboard to power iPhone-free distance and pace monitoring features. Apple's latest Apple Watch Series 3 boasts an LTE radio, allowing for completely untethered location tracking.
Whether the '759 patent claims are applicable to Apple Watch and its various incarnations is unclear. The IP does detail a method of collecting GPS and physiological data, including heart rate information, via a wearable "acquisition unit" similar in scope to Apple's device. However, the IP deviates by splitting off the display unit as a separate module that can be worn on the body or mounted on exercise equipment.
With Apple Watch, the display, GPS radio, heart rate monitor and other necessary internal components are packaged in a single wearable chassis.
Today's complaint is the latest in a withering barrage of Uniloc lawsuits targeting Apple devices and technology. The non-practicing entity first filed suit against the iPhone maker in 2016 over four text messaging patents.
Earlier this year, Uniloc began a rapid fire assault, leveling patent infringement suits once every two or three weeks. The first of these more recent attacks came in April when the patent troll leveraged three patents against Apple Maps, Apple ID and remote software updates.
A suit in May used reassigned HP and 3Com IP to target AirPlay, autodialing and battery technology, while an action in June alleged infringement of IP developed by inventor Philippe Kahn. A month later, Apple was accused of infringing on three patents related to AirPlay and Continuity features.
Prior to today's complaint, Uniloc most recently filed suit against Apple in August, claiming the company's Apple TV Remote app for iOS infringes on a 3Com invention dating back to 1999.
Uniloc is one of the most active patent trolls in the U.S., leveraging reassigned patents or vaguely worded original IP against a number of tech firms including Activision Blizzard, Aspyr, Electronic Arts, McAfee, Microsoft, Rackspace, Sega, Sony, Symantec and more.
As with past complaints filed against Apple, Uniloc in today's lawsuit demands a court trial and seeks unspecified damages, reimbursement of legal fees and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Uniloc Apple Watch Suit by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
Comments
Possibly even the current management of Uniloc. Just start a new company and away they go.
I also don’t understand all the comments that don’t dispute how the author frames his opinion piece.
This issue at hand is the normal course of patent business.
Apple had as much chance to buy the related patent as any other party. The party that bought it bought it because they thought they could make a case it was/is being infringed. The party that sold it may never have pursued an infringement case because they were unawares or had not the resources to do so. If it was the latter, chances are that the sell received a nice sum for the assignment.
So the new owner thinks they can assert infringement and recover damages. Good let them. If there is infringement, Apple will probably pay more than it would have cost to buy or license the patent in the first place; that is also normal and appropriate.
If if the owner had tried to sell or license the patent to Apple, was refused, and Apple infringed, then if the up owner wins, there will be extra penalties for willful infringement; this is also good and normal.
This is the nature of any property, including IP, ownership confers special privileges including renting, selling, suing for damages. Folks that dispute this are apparently ignorant.
Uniloc and similar companies have a history of leveraging untested patents in the hope of obtaining a settlement. It is perfectly ok for people to see this negatively because this is fundamentally a corruption of a system designed to protect genuine innovation.
Yes you are correct in the sense that (paraphrasing) it will all work out in the wash, however this ignores the unreasonable burden on the defendant and the unreasonably large case load on the courts - something which prevents other companies from obtaining timely relief. Apple will survive this fine, but it's small companies that lose out from a clogged system, and the reality that such a slow moving and expensive system allows them to be sued out of existence.
So here is how we disagree: I think that it's perfectly ok for people to be irritated and speak negatively when they hear about a suit like this, why? because we're talking about a publicly held technology that has been around for nearly 40 years, enjoyed by billions around the world every day, and suddenly this company thinks that they have some special way of using it that no one else had thought of before.
To answer your question, essentially, your product, minus litigation costs, would be cheaper by 0$.
The patent, and filing date, if upheld by the court, says they do. Just because it wasn’t enforced doesn’t mean it can’t be enforced, and just because those using it didn’t license or buy it doesn’t mean they aren’t infringing it.
This is one way in which an inventor, or investor in IP, can derive revenue, late in the life of a patent, by selling it a party that thinks they can successfully prosecute an infringement claim. (In a sense, it’s like the owner of a ramshackle house getting an above market offer, from a developer who can do something more with it , be it direct exploitation via manufacture or indirect via infringement prosecution.
Once you get a rep for defeating a few trolls they'll pay to not be on the other team.
Companies used the system (and the fact that the USPTO relied on submission fees for income) and took existing patents and added words like 'Network','computer System','Mobile Device' and bingo, the got a lot more patents for essentially the same thing.
Then there is this reliance on patent fees and the fact that they are still granting patents for blindingly obvious things and also not doing proper research into prior art.
I went through the Patent process in 1980 and believe me back then it was a minefield compared to today. I had to prove that my invention was unique. It was and I was granted a patent. I made no money from it. Very few people sued over patents relating to IT back then.
Now we have a whole sub-culture of [redacted] [redacted] lawyers who exist just to basically extort money from companies mainly because they are using something similar to their pot of gold.
I read one suit a few years ago where the supplsedly infringing patent did reference the other patent and then went on to explain in minute detail how it was different from the other one. The same idea but a very different method. Did not stop the troll going to court. They lost but it cost a huge amount in legal fees to defend. The side that won could not claim their fees back. Only the lawyers won. That is not justice.
The US System is fundamentally broken beyond repair.
The adding of the terms you suggest might just well correspond with the growth of the PC and the activity of the many entrants and uses it spawned.
Whether the the uspto is just a patent mill for the purpose of raising revenue probably requires some kind of citations to make that allegation a bit less questionable.
There have been different hurdles to earning a patent award over time. In the past, a patent had to be accompanied with a patent model. I’m not aware of folks calling the system broken because that expensive and increasingly impractical requirement was dropped. As the patent system was simplified and liberalized, the barriers were lowered so more patents could be submitted. This was done to draw out more ideas. More ideas benefit society and act as foundation stones upon which newer patents are filed (those that either build on existing patents or find a novel way around them.)
Whether your patent generated revenue, while regrettable, is probably irrelevant (as most patents probably don’t.)
I patented my invention as way of gaining kudos amongst my peers (and a $1000/year salary rise). It wasn't done for getting licensing royalties.
The issue of the ethics of getting a patent by adding 'on a Network' or 'Using a Computer' to something has been discussed many times over the years on various forums. These and applying for overly broad patents were IMHO roundly condemmed especially the overly broad patents. Some were seen as being so broad that they literally blocked any further development in that area. You could do very little without violating the terms of the patent. IMHO, a more critical examination process would have rejected them.
Since you're a patent holder (as you've mentioned in this thread and many others, ad nauseam) then you should take an appreciation that the patent system is not flawless. The rights to your own patent/s could be challenged illegitimately by an opportunistic 3rd party who can, at no fault of your own, bring about great legal expenses upon you. Worse still you may be required to prove your rightful ownership again and again through various appeals, or even lose your patent - if you think this is not disruptive then you have your head in the sand.
Also be mindful that owning a patent does not put you in any significant position of authority to dismiss the likelihood of this case being that of a 'patent troll', however the author can certainly make this assumption from the historical record.
I also understand that granted patents can be challenged and invalidated and that both sides of that equation can be costly; this is hardly different from the instant issue of assertion and defense of infringement.
The only thing the author can do is demonstrate his bias. A reference to the historical record will show both wins and losses on both sides; to proactively assert that anyone defending their proprietary IP, regardless of how they came to own it, clearly displays a significant prejudice and bias that works only in the interests of potential infringers.
Ps elsewhere you speak of untested patents as if the court system is not the place to test them; this is nonsensical.