Apple hit with patent infringement lawsuit for selling a smart water bottle

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion edited July 2021
An Ohio-based company is suing Apple for selling smart water bottles that connect to smartwatches like an Apple Watch, allegedly infringing on two patents covering similar technology.

Credit: Hidrate
Credit: Hidrate


The plaintiff in the case is non-practicing entity Xennial IP LLC, which owns U.S. Patent No. 7,792,409 and U.S. Patent No 10,664,571. Both properties cover a "communicative sports water bottle" that can connect to a smart device and track health metrics like water intake.

Apple does not make a smart water bottle with connectivity features. However, on its online store, it does offer HidrateSpark devices that can connect to an Apple Watch, monitor liquid intake and set daily goals.

The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Wednesday, claims that Apple is directly infringing on the '409 patent by "making, using, at least through internal testing or otherwise, offering to sell, selling an/or importing" HidrateSpark water bottles.

According to the complaint, the HidrateSpark system infringes on Xennial's IP because they include a "bottle body having a base and an upwardly extending sidewall therein defining a fluid chamber," as well as smart systems like a sensor and Bluetooth connectivity.

The lawsuit, which demands a jury trial, seeks a permanent enjoinment on further infringement, an award of damages, and attorneys' fees, among other prayers for relief.



Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    pumpkin_kingpumpkin_king Posts: 34member
    Does anyone know a single person that owns a “smart” water bottle?
    doozydozenbloggerbloglam92103pulseimageskillroyfotoformatmwhitedysamoriabluefire1marc g
  • Reply 2 of 31
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,166member
    No point in suing someone who doesn’t have money.
    forgot usernamepulseimageskillroyStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 31
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,125member
    Suing a reseller seems like a stretch.

    They are also sold on Amazon, well.ca…
    Beatsdoozydozenlam92103pulseimagesJFC_PApscooter63killroydysamoriallamaStrangeDays
  • Reply 4 of 31
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,480member
    Sounds like a company that wants freedom of a a patent that should have never been issued. Apple will move to invalidate that vaguely written mess. 
    lam92103williamlondonkillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 31
    S12S12 Posts: 25member
    After just reading the initial few pages of the lawsuit, I think they need to find a new lawyer. Employs 'thousands of people..." Would that be 1,000, 10,000, 100,000? Pretty imprecise language for a legal document. As Mknelson pointed out, these are also sold by Amazon, Walmart, and Bed Bath and Beyond in my area. So claiming patent infringement on one retailer, while apparently being alright with the company manufacturing and selling the product through other retail channels likely means the only winner here is the lawyer.
    doozydozenpichaelspock1234killroyqwerty52transmasterdysamoriaStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 31
    XedXed Posts: 2,543member
    I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, this lawsuit or a smart bottle to monitor your water intake.
    doozydozenravnorodomspock1234lam92103hexclockJFC_PApscooter63killroyentropysfotoformat
  • Reply 7 of 31
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,463member
    Let’s give em a one star rating on Amazon for being aholes  :D
    spock1234DAalsethkillroyzeus423watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 31
    ArchStantonArchStanton Posts: 200member
    It is earnings time. Every earnings time is time for lawsuits. It puts your product in free media. Odds are it is thrown at pretrial but they've already won by that time. 
    killroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 31
    HeliBumHeliBum Posts: 129member
    The US Patent system needs some serious reform, like requiring patent holders to at least attempt to get their inventions produced, whether it be a single prototype or mass production.
    edited July 2021 DnykjpRfC6fnBspichaellam92103killroyzeus423dysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 31
    ravnorodomravnorodom Posts: 694member
    Xed said:
    I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, this lawsuit or a smart bottle to monitor your water intake.
    LOL. I was thinking the same thing. I wonder how much tracking do we need for everything we do?
    killroyfred1dysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 31
    DnykjpRfC6fnBsDnykjpRfC6fnBs Posts: 69member
    S12 said:
    After just reading the initial few pages of the lawsuit, I think they need to find a new lawyer. Employs 'thousands of people..." Would that be 1,000, 10,000, 100,000? Pretty imprecise language for a legal document. As Mknelson pointed out, these are also sold by Amazon, Walmart, and Bed Bath and Beyond in my area. So claiming patent infringement on one retailer, while apparently being alright with the company manufacturing and selling the product through other retail channels likely means the only winner here is the lawyer.
    Apple has the deepest pockets. Why go after a reseller (Apple)  and like the original poster said, Amazon Walmart Bed Bath and Beyond and ignore other resellers. I could see maybe a cease and desist telling Apple and others to quit selling them. Why aren’t they going after the company that made them other than Apple has the deep pockets. 
    pichaelspock1234killroydysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 31
    melamela Posts: 4member
    pumpkin_king said:
    Does anyone know a single person that owns a “smart” water bottle?

    No, and I personally draw the line at having to charge my water bottle :D
    spock1234bageljoeykillroymuthuk_vanalingamrotateleftbytemike1dysamoriallamawatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 31
    OctoMonkeyOctoMonkey Posts: 311member
    Some of these suits baffle me.  My memory of patent law is ideas cannot be patented, only the specific implementation of an idea.  Dolby labs patented their method of tape noise reduction, but could not patent the basic idea of noise reduction.  dbx reduction used a completely different approach and therefor did not infringe on Dolby's patents.

    It seems the US patent world has lost its way.
    spock1234lam92103killroyBombdoemike1dysamoriaStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 31
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,421member
    I don't understand this. Apple did not own those patents, it's merely reselling that product. Why is it not going after the actual company, Hidratespark, that made the bottle? 


    mogiedysamoriallamakillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 31
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,250member
    ravnorodom said:
    Xed said:
    I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, this lawsuit or a smart bottle to monitor your water intake.
    LOL. I was thinking the same thing. I wonder how much tracking do we need for everything we do?
    How about a companion device to track the rate of urination. Just clamp it on and go… so to speak. 
    zeus423dysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 31
    amnesia0287amnesia0287 Posts: 3member
    netrox said:
    I don't understand this. Apple did not own those patents, it's merely reselling that product. Why is it not going after the actual company, Hidratespark, that made the bottle? 


    Cause Apple’s bank account is waaaaaaaaaay bigger. Lawsuits like this are basically created hoping they can find a judge that won’t throw them out and they can drag out the case through whatever means until Apple just doesn’t wanna deal with them anymore and pays them to go away. Remember after all, our previous president rubber-stamped a LOT of judges all over the country who based on normal standards for judges are  woefully unqualified and/or are politically minded. All it takes is one who doesn’t know better or just wants to screw with “the librul teck companees” and allow outrageous things during discovery to give Apple a headache. 

    They would have a leg to stand on IF their patent was was built in to their products (for example if apple bought cellular chips that did not pay Qualcomm and apple used the chips in their products and also didn’t pay Qualcomm then they would be partially liable. If they were mislead into believing the chips had already been licensed based on their purchase agreement or w/e then Apple could sue the chipmaker for damages as well). But you can’t infringe on IP just through being a reseller with no production or modification of a product unless you are knowingly doing so, but retail outlets are not obligated to do much else besides document the source of the stuff they sell. The way Apple would know said product was in violation would be by the patent holder suing the producer and winning.

    There is no possible way any retailer could be expected to know if every product they sold was not violating any patents because it’s simply an insurmountable task that no retailer would ever be willing to deal with, there are WAY too many patents and a horrendous number are way too vague and generic in their description and/or subject such that lots of infringement occurs simply by accident because even by searching to make sure they aren’t infringing anything they couldn’t find a patent that fit their product and they quite possibly even have a patent on the same or similar wording because even the patent office didn’t find the issue.
    edited July 2021 killroydysamoriallamawatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 31
    zeus423zeus423 Posts: 240member
    hexclock said:
    ravnorodom said:
    Xed said:
    I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, this lawsuit or a smart bottle to monitor your water intake.
    LOL. I was thinking the same thing. I wonder how much tracking do we need for everything we do?
    How about a companion device to track the rate of urination. Just clamp it on and go… so to speak. 
    Beat me to it! I was going to suggest the water bottle needs to monitor intake and output.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 31
    KuyangkohKuyangkoh Posts: 838member
    zeus423 said:
    hexclock said:
    ravnorodom said:
    Xed said:
    I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, this lawsuit or a smart bottle to monitor your water intake.
    LOL. I was thinking the same thing. I wonder how much tracking do we need for everything we do?
    How about a companion device to track the rate of urination. Just clamp it on and go… so to speak. 
    Beat me to it! I was going to suggest the water bottle needs to monitor intake and output.
    Hahahahahaha, what goes IN must goes OUT 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 31
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 2,000member
    This is a stupid suit.  

    However, the fact that the peeson/organization/company bringing the suit is a so-called "non-practicing entity" is irrelevant.  
    llamakillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 31
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,571member
    Kuyangkoh said:
    zeus423 said:
    hexclock said:
    ravnorodom said:
    Xed said:
    I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, this lawsuit or a smart bottle to monitor your water intake.
    LOL. I was thinking the same thing. I wonder how much tracking do we need for everything we do?
    How about a companion device to track the rate of urination. Just clamp it on and go… so to speak. 
    Beat me to it! I was going to suggest the water bottle needs to monitor intake and output.
    Hahahahahaha, what goes IN must goes OUT 
    The problem is that water leaves the body in three different ways. You already know the first way. The second way is by sweat, and you lose about 0.4 liters of water per day that way. The third way is by exhalation. You lose about 0.4 liters of water from exhalation every day, too. Add those two numbers up and it just about equals how much liquid you lose from the first way.
    dysamoriakillroywatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.