Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,480
16,553



Apple is facing a lawsuit from Omni MedSci, a company that says Apple is infringing on its patented technology with the Apple Watch's heart rate sensor, reports Axios.

Omni MedSci claims to have met with Apple from 2014 until 2016, but Apple ultimately ended discussions for a partnership and then reportedly used Omni MedSci's patented technology.

applewatchheartrate2.jpg

Omni MedSci filed a lawsuit in the Eastern district of Texas today, claiming that Apple willfully infringed on its patents and asking for an injunction against Apple along with damages.

Apple first introduced the Apple Watch in 2015, and since its debut, the Apple Watch has featured a built-in heart rate sensor. Heart rate sensing is a key feature of the wrist-worn device, and recent studies have suggested it can be used to detect a wealth of health problems, like atrial fibrillation, early signs of diabetes, hypertension, and more.

Omni MedSci, the company suing Apple, is owned by Mohammed Islam, who in 2015 was described by a Detroit news site as a "poster child for a patenting professional." He owns six companies and has collected more than 150 patents.

"There's getting a patent and there's getting a patent that will withstand litigation," he told the site. "It's an art form."

Islam has expertise in optical and laster technology and appears to hold several related patents. His patent holding company, Cheetah Omni, has levied lawsuits against companies that include Fujitsu, Alcatel-Lucent, Huawei, Nokia, and Siemens.

In 2015, Islam said that Omni MedSci was working on a wearable glucose monitor that uses lasers to monitor blood sugar levels. At the time, he said that he had met with Apple about the product.

Article Link: Apple Facing Lawsuit Over Heart Rate Sensor in Apple Watch
 

Mac4Brains

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2005
127
181
I would ask if it is normal for a patient lawsuit to appear three years after the theoretical infringing product is put on the market. I would grant this more of an eyebrow rise if it happened in the first quarter of the watch hitting the market. SO yea this sounds like a potent troll.
 

Doc C

macrumors regular
Nov 5, 2013
230
182
Sadly, this will have a small chance of succeeding.
And no matter what Apple does, it won't stop the next troll from trying as well.
Having said that, if Apple really did infringe on someone else's technology, as demonstrated by working prototypes, then they should have to pay (though I suspect that this isn't the reality...)

The system is broken, and there is no fix on the horizon...
 
  • Like
Reactions: nekonokami

cmwade77

macrumors 65816
Nov 18, 2008
1,068
1,197
If they don’t have any actual product they’re a patent troll. Nuff said.

They should ONLY grant patents to those with working prototypes.
Actually, no, if you have a good idea on paper and don't have the money to get a working prototype, you should still be able to patent it. BUT we need to get back to the original concept of patents, which is this:
  • You file your design with the patent office
  • They grant the patent in a timely manner (3 months or less I would say is reasonable these days)
  • The patent lasts for a certain amount of time, I know it used to be longer, but I would say 3 years would be reasonable, but some may disagree. This allows you to recapture your R&D costs and make a reasonable amount of profit.
  • After that people may not copy your idea exactly, but they may use it as a base for other products or as a part of another product without paying any royalties. They then can file for a patent on their product and the cycle starts over.
This is what the original patent concept was and it was designed this way to encourage innovation while at the same time making sure that the companies that invented stuff were able to make a profit. If we adhered strictly to this concept, I think we would see a lot more innovation and a lot fewer lawsuits. Let's stop making lawyers rich and start actually coming up with new ideas again.
 

techwhiz

macrumors 65816
Feb 22, 2010
1,245
1,708
Northern Ca.
Eastern District of Texas. It tells you all that you needed to hear.
Only trolls file suits there.
[doublepost=1523059190][/doublepost]
If they don’t have any actual product they’re a patent troll. Nuff said.

They should ONLY grant patents to those with working prototypes.

Agree to some extent but it is not always practical.
A computer running an algorithm doing A. B. and C.
Patent the algorithm, not the concept.
 

SoGood

macrumors 6502
Apr 9, 2003
444
228
This is why some companies are extremely cautious in making contact or discuss technologies for fear of bumping into trolls like this. They use patents with broad claims but little detail or continued development to try to extract financial advantages. Nasty stuff!
 

layte

macrumors regular
Jul 23, 2008
205
13
Last edited by a moderator:

SoGood

macrumors 6502
Apr 9, 2003
444
228
Is it to ensure the product is successful, so there is more potential reward money?
Absolutely! So the company, Apple in this case, can justify the payment of a settlement or royalty. If AW was not successful, this guy’s’ law suit may just can the whole project, in which case there’s no economic benefit for anyone. All pretty devious.
 

Will.O.Bie

macrumors 6502
Aug 29, 2016
452
1,165
Absolutely! So the company, Apple in this case, can justify the payment of a settlement or royalty. If AW was not successful, this guy’s’ law suit may just can the whole project, in which case there’s no economic benefit for anyone. All pretty devious.
According to him "it's an art form"
 

McG2k1

macrumors 6502
Jun 22, 2011
279
455
On the one hand I feel like these are probably trolls, and then on the other hand Apple seems to give zero F’s about absorbing other people’s IP, usually under seemingly shady circumstances. I’m sure we can rely on the courts to make the right call.
 

PinkyMacGodess

macrumors 604
Mar 7, 2007
7,346
3,741
Midwest America.
This is crap.

Wanna know why?

'Eastern District of Texas'. There is no way that this is based on anything even remotely resembling their technology. Otherwise why go to the crookedest court for huge judgements for 'favored' corporations. I wonder if they bought a park, or a school, or courthouse. Sad...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jinnj and cylack

SoGood

macrumors 6502
Apr 9, 2003
444
228
On the one hand I feel like these are probably trolls, and then on the other hand Apple seems to give zero F’s about absorbing other people’s IP, usually under seemingly shady circumstances. I’m sure we can rely on the courts to make the right call.

Well, any large corporation would treat IP position very carefully and would have in-house and contract attorneys review their position. As such, they invariably already have legal opinions that supported their IP position and rejected this guy’s IP. Once triple damage risks are managed, the rest will come down to how the courts rule on these patents. Just because there’s a patent doesn’t mean it’s valid nor infringing. The issuing of patents by the patent office can be haphazard too, leading to invalidity claims. Great money making opportunity for the litigation lawyers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.