Apple Facing Lawsuit Over Heart Rate Sensor in Apple Watch

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Apr 6, 2018.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    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.

    [​IMG]

    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
     
  2. racerhomie macrumors member

    racerhomie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2015
    #2
    Eastern District of Texas. It tells you all that you needed to hear.
     
  3. blacktape242 macrumors 65816

    blacktape242

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
  4. dontwalkhand macrumors 601

    dontwalkhand

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Mac4Brains macrumors member

    Mac4Brains

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    #5
    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.
     
  6. tychay macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #6
    Eastern District of Texas == Patent Troll. Sigh.
     
  7. Doc C macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    #7
    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...
     
  8. toph2toast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    #8
    In fairness Apple has filed a boat load of patents for products that haven’t been released.
     
  9. cmwade77 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    #9
    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.
     
  10. techwhiz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Location:
    Northern Ca.
    #10
    Only trolls file suits there.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 6, 2018 ---
    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.
     
  11. lec0rsaire macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    #11
    Here we go again. Has there ever been a week where someone hasn’t filed a lawsuit against Apple?
     
  12. SoGood macrumors 6502

    SoGood

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #12
    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!
     
  13. Tech198 macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Location:
    Australia, Perth
    #13
    There seems to be an escalation of lawsuits with Apple.. Seems every product they bring out now is face with one.
     
  14. layte, Apr 6, 2018
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 7, 2018

    layte macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #14
    http://www.crainsdetroit.com/awards/most_innovative_companies/2015

    Just because a company has the gall to sue Apple doesn't make them a patent troll.
     
  15. SoGood macrumors 6502

    SoGood

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #15
    Litigation lawyers go for the money, otherwise there’s no value. Apple is a great target.
     
  16. DipDog3 macrumors 65816

    DipDog3

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    #16
    Maybe he has a case, maybe not, but why wait so long to file a lawsuit?

    Is it to ensure the product is successful, so there is more potential reward money?
     
  17. SoGood macrumors 6502

    SoGood

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #18
    Daily lawsuits will go on against Apple….. until Amazon surpasses Apple to become the world's most valuable corporation.
     
  19. topgunn macrumors 65816

    topgunn

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Houston
    #19
    That his Michigan-based business choose to sue a California-based business in an East Texas district known for siding with patent holders of dubious repute doesn’t speak well of his case.
     
  20. Will.O.Bie macrumors 6502

    Will.O.Bie

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    #20
    According to him "it's an art form"
     
  21. McG2k1 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    #21
    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.
     
  22. SoGood macrumors 6502

    SoGood

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #22
    A well know and practiced ‘art form’.
     
  23. PinkyMacGodess macrumors 601

    PinkyMacGodess

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest America.
    #23
    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...
     
  24. SoGood macrumors 6502

    SoGood

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #24
    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.
     
  25. dontwalkhand macrumors 601

    dontwalkhand

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #25
    However they eventually do. The ones they don’t use should be relinquished.
     

Share This Page