September 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 272

Advertisement

September 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

International Trade Commission Invalidates Patents to Fitness Monitoring Systems as Ineligible under § 101

A recent patent validity decision involving personal fitness monitoring devices underscores the wide-ranging application of the Supreme Court’s Alice decision as a tool for patent defendants accused of infringing patents to computer-implemented technologies. In an initial determination issued on April 27, 2016, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) invalidated claims of two patents directed to wearable sleep monitoring systems on patent eligibility grounds. The ITC concluded that the claims contained nothing more than an abstract idea—monitoring, recording and reporting a user’s sleep patterns—implemented using standard, non-inventive computer technology.

The ITC’s decision related to a Motion for Summary Determination filed by FitBit, Inc. and addressed two related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,961,413 and 8,073,707 assigned to BodyMedia, Inc. and AliphCom, Inc. d/b/a Jawbone. The asserted claims of both patents recited similar systems for monitoring and reporting a “status” of an individual, each including at least two sensors and a processor configured to collect and manipulate physiological data from a user. In the ’413 patent, for example, the claims recited a wearable device configured to collect and transmit information relating to the user’s sleep pattern, including sleep onset and awakening. The claims of both patents include functionally defined limitations, and their specifications make clear that the claimed systems could be built from preexisting, off-the-shelf components.

The ITC concluded that the ’413 and ’707 patents “seek a monopoly on the abstract ideas of collecting and monitoring sleep and other health-related data, and are therefore ineligible under section 101.” In particular, the decision held that the information collected by the claimed systems can be and has been collected and recorded by humans well before the advent of computer technology, and the implementation of those abstract concepts using generic computer technology did not add anything inventive to the claims. Because the patentee had not invented any of the actual technological components used in the claimed systems, it could not patent the idea of monitoring sleep or other physiological processes using those means. The ITC also rejected the recommendation of its own investigative staff that limiting the claims to a system housed in a single, wearable unit saved the claims of the ’413 Patent, reasoning that the recitation of a “handful of generic computer components” (quoting Alice) and a wearable device to house them was not substantively different than the idea itself. The judge concluded that invalidity was not even a “close question.”

This decision highlights § 101 as a source of invalidity arguments in the personal fitness monitoring space, as many claims to monitoring methods or systems could be similarly cast as abstract. This decision follows another ITC decision invalidating similar claims directed to weight monitoring systems, In re Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-963, Order No. 54.

©2022 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLPNational Law Review, Volume VI, Number 127
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Kevin P. Moran, Intellectual Property attorney, Michael Best, manufacturing industry legal counsel,
Partner

Clients look to Kevin for strategic counsel on the protection of their intellectual property, including acquisition of, enforcement of, and defense against United States and international patents.

His strong track record in these areas, paired with a technical background as a product engineer, give Kevin a unique perspective on the challenges facing developers of mechanical, electro-mechanical, and biomedical technologies.

Kevin has significant experience in the areas of fitness equipment, motorcycles, vehicle braking...

262-956-6510
Andrew Dufresne, intellectual property, attorney, Michael Best, law firm
Attorney

Andrew Dufresne is an attorney focusing his practice on intellectual property law. Dr. Dufresne has experience with patent prosecution, reexamination, and post-grant proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office; patent litigation matters in federal court at the trial and appellate levels; and strategic counseling in other patent-related matters, including patentability and freedom-to-operate assessments.

608-283-0137
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement