I don't see how simply timing a heart beat and measuring differences -- which is what the Apple Watch does -- can be restricted by any patent.
I could see patenting the technology of how to time it and measure differences or even how to "see" the heart beat itself. But simply timing it and measuring the differences would be like patenting the measurement of a person's height or weight you might patent the tools for doing so (like a scale or ruler) but not the process itself.
You know, if you read the patent linked to in the article, it actually does describe the use of the technologies and other components and methods in great detail.
Yes, the article says that it does -- but describing technologies already patented by somebody else (such as the optical sensor) doesn't count. That leaves timing the heart bears which is not patentable.
The Doctor is not going to win. Anyone that thinks he has a case knows nothing about patents and how they work. Apple has filed so many patents on their watch already that have been approved by the patent office. Patents are issued for improvements on already patented inventions all the time. They are actually called Improvement Patents. There are now 35,000 relating to drones since only 2016. Why? Products can be very similar without violating patent laws because patents do not protect products. Patents protect inventions. This subtle distinction explains why very similar products do not automatically violate patent laws. An invention can be patented if it is novel. Even if something similar exists, an invention is patentable if the elements in it are not obvious. For example, cameras and cell phones are known technologies. However, the combination of the two was once not obvious. Even though cell phone cameras are similar to other cameras, they appear in a combination that was not obvious . Products can be similar without violating patent laws if the inventions that underlie both products are different. For example, computers by Apple share similarities to computers by Dell. However, the individual elements that make up an Apple are sufficiently different from the elements that make up a Dell. RAID systems provide another excellent example. A RAID system is a type of memory used in large servers. There are hundreds of different patents for RAID systems, each configured differently. Look at the different streaming devices for you television, ROKU, Apple TV, GoogleCast. This doctor designed a medical device that measures someone's heartrate in a very specific way and calculates the measurements in a very specific way; the device is not a watch! Look wireless Bluetooth headphones. Lots of manufactures. Apple has gotten different patents on their watch that have been granted by the patent office because they deemed those acceptable to receive a patent based on their subject rules for what they consider new technology or improvements to existing inventions. Apple has spend millions on attorneys to get those new tech or improvement to new tech.
The Doctor is not going to win. Anyone that thinks he has a case knows nothing about patents and how they work. Apple has filed so many patents on their watch already that have been approved by the patent office. Patents are issued for improvements on already patented inventions all the time. They are actually called Improvement Patents. There are now 35,000 relating to drones since only 2016. Why? Products can be very similar without violating patent laws because patents do not protect products. Patents protect inventions. This subtle distinction explains why very similar products do not automatically violate patent laws. An invention can be patented if it is novel. Even if something similar exists, an invention is patentable if the elements in it are not obvious. For example, cameras and cell phones are known technologies. However, the combination of the two was once not obvious. Even though cell phone cameras are similar to other cameras, they appear in a combination that was not obvious . Products can be similar without violating patent laws if the inventions that underlie both products are different. For example, computers by Apple share similarities to computers by Dell. However, the individual elements that make up an Apple are sufficiently different from the elements that make up a Dell. RAID systems provide another excellent example. A RAID system is a type of memory used in large servers. There are hundreds of different patents for RAID systems, each configured differently. Look at the different streaming devices for you television, ROKU, Apple TV, GoogleCast. This doctor designed a medical device that measures someone's heartrate in a very specific way and calculates the measurements in a very specific way; the device is not a watch! Look wireless Bluetooth headphones. Lots of manufactures. Apple has gotten different patents on their watch that have been granted by the patent office because they deemed those acceptable to receive a patent based on their subject rules for what they consider new technology or improvements to existing inventions. Apple has spend millions on attorneys to get those new tech or improvement to new tech.
I'm usually very skeptical of these suits, but this one might have legs.
Nope. Reread... significant prior art, never developed a product. Just another “inventor" who thinks they have Apple by the short hairs.
That is my thought as well. There are lots of could be an ASIC, PAL or RISC processor. The heart beat is measured by any one on these 5-6 methods. The detection is by heuristic or other algorithm.
It reads like an idea and not something fleshed out. It reads like he had the concept but didn’t know how to realize the actuality of the invention.
Methinx the good doctor is about to undergo a valuable lesson in the huge cavernous difference between filing a patent and actually having a valid one.
These devices have been around for yonks - I know 'cause my a-fib was monitored using one way back in the late 90s.
Prior art is gonna kick this one to the curb.
But he HAS a patent. The prior art is for the type of sensor, but this is a different, novel, use of them to perform a different test. He also didn't wait until it had been out for a decade like some patent trolls do. I think this might have merit. I can see the court siding with him and making Apple pay.
Methinx the good doctor is about to undergo a valuable lesson in the huge cavernous difference between filing a patent and actually having a valid one.
These devices have been around for yonks - I know 'cause my a-fib was monitored using one way back in the late 90s.
Prior art is gonna kick this one to the curb.
But he HAS a patent. The prior art is for the type of sensor, but this is a different, novel, use of them to perform a different test. He also didn't wait until it had been out for a decade like some patent trolls do. I think this might have merit. I can see the court siding with him and making Apple pay.
I still disagree with your opinion but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Of course this is the last we’ll hear about this for maybe four years or more.
I’m certain the plaintiff is kicking himself for not specifying a “wrist-mounted watch-type device” instead of “devices attached to "appendages" specified as a finger in the patent, or a "cuff device".
It would have helped his case immeasurably.
Yeah. There are a lot huge holes in this patent.
It really should be invalidated based on: 2. A method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing includes ascertaining a mean and a standard deviation of the succession of time intervals, the determination being based upon a quotient formed by dividing said standard deviation by said mean and comparing the quotient with a threshold value.
21. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein said threshold value is within the range of 0.05 to 0.10.
This is the only thing that may be original in the entire patent, and it is basically high school math. Maybe he conducted his own survey for heartbeat data to develop the threshold values. Then, I would really question if they described method even works with enough accuracy for an actual product.
If Apple used a neural network to determine a-fib, or some other technique, this patent obviously has no applicability, and the suit dies.
Methinx the good doctor is about to undergo a valuable lesson in the huge cavernous difference between filing a patent and actually having a valid one.
These devices have been around for yonks - I know 'cause my a-fib was monitored using one way back in the late 90s.
Prior art is gonna kick this one to the curb.
Unless of course the tech differs or if the doctor is involved in some ways with those other products.
That would be cited in the research notes of the patent application(s).
Anytime you get involved in Medicine, someone will find a way to sue your ass.
It just requires being involved in producing and selling a product. You need not be involved in medicine. The patent system & corporate America are big piles of brokenness & anticompetitiveness.
Methinx the good doctor is about to undergo a valuable lesson in the huge cavernous difference between filing a patent and actually having a valid one.
These devices have been around for yonks - I know 'cause my a-fib was monitored using one way back in the late 90s.
Prior art is gonna kick this one to the curb.
But he HAS a patent. The prior art is for the type of sensor, but this is a different, novel, use of them to perform a different test. He also didn't wait until it had been out for a decade like some patent trolls do. I think this might have merit. I can see the court siding with him and making Apple pay.
I still disagree with your opinion but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Of course this is the last we’ll hear about this for maybe four years or more.
I've read the patent and don't think the doc stands a chance. Too many claims are tied to blood pressure measurement, which Apple does not do. Too many claims are poorly conceived or worded, such as the one requiring "at least one of a microprocessor, AND application specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic array AND a reduced instruction set chip".
Finally, the main problem with the patent is that it effectively reads like:
I love how everyone’s an expert in these comment sections. “Nope, re-read please, prior art, invalid patent, Googled and found nothing, chancer, etc, etc, etc.” Any chance we can all stop being passive aggressive arseholes for two minutes and just see how it turns out?
Methinx the good doctor is about to undergo a valuable lesson in the huge cavernous difference between filing a patent and actually having a valid one.
These devices have been around for yonks - I know 'cause my a-fib was monitored using one way back in the late 90s.
Prior art is gonna kick this one to the curb.
But he HAS a patent. The prior art is for the type of sensor, but this is a different, novel, use of them to perform a different test. He also didn't wait until it had been out for a decade like some patent trolls do. I think this might have merit. I can see the court siding with him and making Apple pay.
Just because one HAS a patent doesn't make for a slam dunk case. The fact he 'came out' right away means nothing.
I can see the court siding with Apple because the doctor doesn't have a case and I'm not a patent lawyer, just like everyone else is not.
Apple or the doctor will win or lose, or there will be a settlement. But none of us knows:
a) all the facts in the cases of both plantiff and defendant b) patent law as well as lawyers c) who has the best lawyers (but I'm guessing Apple)
So talk is cheap. 'The doctor's a troll!' 'Apple is a corrupt corporate machine!' 'They'll settle and we won't know the details. But we'll pretend we do.' Say whatever and nobody will remember how was right and who (mostly everybody) was talking out there ass.
All I can say, is cases like this need to go in front an expert panel, and not a regular jury.
That is not how patent cases are tried.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with you though.
I had a nice conversation with a federal district judge who've handled multiple patent cases that went before a jury. Some have gone well, others have not. The key is the details given in jury instructions, the expertise of the attorneys and the judge in making patent law specific for this specific case and, of course, the general IQ of the jury. And, also the complexity of the fact situation.
As an attorney who also has a graduate degree in computer science and who did coursework in patent law, I expect deciding patent cases would be difficult for me, not to mention those without even my background -- but that is how it is done.
Issued in 2006 and still hasn't been acquired by any of the major medical monitoring companies after 13 years says a lot of about the value of this patent. Assuming 12 months b/n filing and issuance, this patent will be running out of steam in another 3 years. Desperate measure to extract some return.
Small independent patent owners aren't typically out there to 'win', but to achieve an acceptable settlement. Here, the question is more than validity of the patent but also how deep is his pocket. Is he ready to enter a multi-million $$$ litigation, in which Apple will need to match it more or less in the legal cost. As such, there's opportunity for settlement. It's a gamble of high stakes, especially for the plaintiff here.
Comments
Yes, the article says that it does -- but describing technologies already patented by somebody else (such as the optical sensor) doesn't count. That leaves timing the heart bears which is not patentable.
It reads like an idea and not something fleshed out. It reads like he had the concept but didn’t know how to realize the actuality of the invention.
It will provide fun for lawyers to make bank.
Nothing new in that.
2. A method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing includes ascertaining a mean and a standard deviation of the succession of time intervals, the determination being based upon a quotient formed by dividing said standard deviation by said mean and comparing the quotient with a threshold value.
If Apple used a neural network to determine a-fib, or some other technique, this patent obviously has no applicability, and the suit dies.
That would be cited in the research notes of the patent application(s).
Finally, the main problem with the patent is that it effectively reads like:
Method of and apparatus for detecting moonquakes
First, land on the moon.
“Nope, re-read please, prior art, invalid patent, Googled and found nothing, chancer, etc, etc, etc.”
Any chance we can all stop being passive aggressive arseholes for two minutes and just see how it turns out?
I can see the court siding with Apple because the doctor doesn't have a case and I'm not a patent lawyer, just like everyone else is not.
Apple or the doctor will win or lose, or there will be a settlement. But none of us knows:
a) all the facts in the cases of both plantiff and defendant
b) patent law as well as lawyers
c) who has the best lawyers (but I'm guessing Apple)
So talk is cheap. 'The doctor's a troll!' 'Apple is a corrupt corporate machine!' 'They'll settle and we won't know the details. But we'll pretend we do.' Say whatever and nobody will remember how was right and who (mostly everybody) was talking out there ass.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with you though.
I had a nice conversation with a federal district judge who've handled multiple patent cases that went before a jury. Some have gone well, others have not. The key is the details given in jury instructions, the expertise of the attorneys and the judge in making patent law specific for this specific case and, of course, the general IQ of the jury. And, also the complexity of the fact situation.
As an attorney who also has a graduate degree in computer science and who did coursework in patent law, I expect deciding patent cases would be difficult for me, not to mention those without even my background -- but that is how it is done.
Let the legal system do its job, since it'll run its course whether or not you win an internet argument.