Apple Facing Lawsuit Over Heart Rate Sensor in Apple Watch

[Carnegie]

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.

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?

There are a number of reasons why a patent holder might wait to file an infringement suit. For instance, they may be trying to resolve the matter in other ways.

But regarding this situation in particular: Two of the patents at issue weren't granted until this year and the other two were only granted last year. Of the four patents, the earliest grant was less than a year ago.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

However they eventually do. The ones they don’t use should be relinquished.

Good luck with that. I'd wager a surprisingly high number of patents are never used in actual products. Some corporations, I've heard, will file what amounts to predatory patents, just to stop another competing corporation from using technology that will help them. To me, it makes no sense.
[doublepost=1523064586][/doublepost]

There are a number of reasons why a patent holder might wait to file an infringement suit. For instance, they may be trying to resolve the matter in other ways.

But regarding this situation in particular: Two of the patents at issue weren't granted until this year and the other two were only granted last year. Of the four patents, the earliest grant was less than a year ago.

So its totally possible that the PTO issued these patents in error. Good luck getting them to admit, and correct, that... The PTO creates most of the BS lawsuits and shackles that industry deals with. THEY have probably created a spike in attorney graduations over the years. Think of all the money they have caused to be wasted on their ineptitude. Amazing...

 

[mosess]

Here we go again. Has there ever been a week where someone hasn’t filed a lawsuit against Apple?

They see a successful business that they were too lazy or ignorant to build or have played a role in but they want a piece of it nonetheless. Just greedy scumbags trying to leech off the success of others.

 

[cycomiko]

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?

So, basically, through magic, as soon as a product is released, you instantly know if their concept infringes your patent, and instantly file lawsuits. Sounds legit. Do products get manufactured instantly after design in your world?

 

[mtneer]

Eastern District of Texas == Patent Troll. Sigh.

Isn't the law, the law, everywhere? What's so special about the Eastern District of Texas? I can't believe that a Federal Court is in some hick place where the judges are on the take, like it were on the Dukes of Hazzard or something...

 

[DblHelix]

Odd how they wait for millions of units to sell before filing. Guess they wait to get their big payday

 

[JosephAW]

But Apple's disclaimer says "this IS NOT a medical device". Omni MedSci IS a medical device.
Like candy cigarettes vs camels

 

[topgunn]

Isn't the law, the law, everywhere? What's so special about the Eastern District of Texas? I can't believe that a Federal Court is in some hick place where the judges are on the take, like it were on the Dukes of Hazzard or something...

“More than 40 percent of patent lawsuits are filed in a federal court in East Texas with a reputation for friendliness to plaintiffs.”

“In recent years, a single judge based in Marshall, Tex., oversaw about a quarter of all patent cases nationwide, more than the number handled by all federal judges in California, Florida and New York combined.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/supreme-court-patent-trolls-tc-heartland-kraft.html

 

[mwd25]

There are a number of reasons why a patent holder might wait to file an infringement suit. For instance, they may be trying to resolve the matter in other ways.

But regarding this situation in particular: Two of the patents at issue weren't granted until this year and the other two were only granted last year. Of the four patents, the earliest grant was less than a year ago.

Well, thats a problem. How in the world are you granted a patent for something that has been used in another product for going on 4 years???? Did anyone in the patent office think....."The patent you are asking us to approve is already being used in Apple Watch, dont think we can grant you a patent to a existing product AND one thats gone to market years ago"

 

[SoGood]

“More than 40 percent of patent lawsuits are filed in a federal court in East Texas with a reputation for friendliness to plaintiffs.”

“In recent years, a single judge based in Marshall, Tex., oversaw about a quarter of all patent cases nationwide, more than the number handled by all federal judges in California, Florida and New York combined.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/supreme-court-patent-trolls-tc-heartland-kraft.html

Fight the fight in East TX and then go to appeal court to overturn the ruling -> End of case.

 

[Marshall73]

This technology is not new, it’s been around for decades, just how old are his patents? The real ‘magic’ in this are the algorithms used to interpret the data.

 

[SoGood]

This technology is not new, it’s been around for decades, just how old are his patents? The real ‘magic’ in this are the algorithms used to interpret the data.

Indeed, and may we’ll be invalidated in court. Apple’s patent attorneys would have had a view on them.

 

[Piggie]

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.

Whilst I don't disagree with you, would that include Apple, and also how would you manage that in the real world?

What I mean by this is this.........

Say I have a few Billion $ to play with.
I could patent an idea, just to stop others making it, and to enforce that, I could throw, let's say 100K $ just to get my tab/tech team to knock together a early prototype product to satisfy that we have a sample of how we could use the tech, and then just sit on it.

Of course, if I was not a GIANT company, I could still have a great idea, but not have the money to create ans sit on such a prototype.

Myself. I'm actually of the opinion that you need to have some timeframe to bring to mass consumer sale any product that you wish to retain copyright on.
If you can't make it, or won't make it, then you should not legally be able to have a copyright which stops others from doing that same.

Or course, there needs to be some timeframe here, and also legal records to stop big companies ripping the small guy off.

 

[gnasher729]

Indeed, and may we’ll be invalidated in court. Apple’s patent attorneys would have had a view on them.

Not necessarily invalidated. Apple's lawyers have most likely looked at the patent, and decided that it doesn't patent anything that the Apple Watch heart rate sensors are doing. Or that they could change the Apple Watch to not do anything patented before it is released.

 

[ginkobiloba]

"It's an art form". So he is already admitting to be a patent troll.
Next troll please...

 

[bensisko]

Whilst I don't disagree with you, would that include Apple, and also how would you manage that in the real world?

What I mean by this is this.........

Say I have a few Billion $ to play with.
I could patent an idea, just to stop others making it, and to enforce that, I could throw, let's say 100K $ just to get my tab/tech team to knock together a early prototype product to satisfy that we have a sample of how we could use the tech, and then just sit on it.

Of course, if I was not a GIANT company, I could still have a great idea, but not have the money to create ans sit on such a prototype.

Myself. I'm actually of the opinion that you need to have some timeframe to bring to mass consumer sale any product that you wish to retain copyright on.
If you can't make it, or won't make it, then you should not legally be able to have a copyright which stops others from doing that same.

Or course, there needs to be some timeframe here, and also legal records to stop big companies ripping the small guy off.

If a company patients something AND they create a working prototype, but never bring it to market, I don’t have a problem with that - it shows they at least know it works and have the ability to produce. There may be reasons they don’t bring it to market and that’s okay (by me) - at least it’s not a sketch that you don’t even know if it would work.

 

[digiridoo]

My Apple watch's heartrate sensor can read my heartrate when I aim the sensor out towards the sky.

At the same time my Apple watch wakes me at 4:30 am to tell me that I have achieved my standing goal.

LOL

 

[bensisko]

My Apple watch's heartrate sensor can read my heartrate when I aim the sensor out towards the sky.

At the same time my Apple watch wakes me at 4:30 am to tell me that I have achieved my standing goal.

LOL

Then you should probably get it checked out...

 

[Mascots]

My Apple watch's heartrate sensor can read my heartrate when I aim the sensor out towards the sky.

At the same time my Apple watch wakes me at 4:30 am to tell me that I have achieved my standing goal.

LOL

Something doesn't work as intended when it's not used the way it's supposed to... okay.

How can you achieve your stand goal of 12 hours when you've only had it on for 4.5 that day?

Sounds legit. /s

 

[NoNothing]

In fairness Apple has filed a boat load of patents for products that haven’t been released.

Prototype != realeased.

 

[cmaier]

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.

Yes, it is normal. There is a six year statute of limitations.
[doublepost=1523112180][/doublepost]

In fairness Apple has filed a boat load of patents for products that haven’t been released.

Difference between having a prototype and releasing it as a product. But patent law shouldn’t require the plaintiff has sales. It would decimate our university system.
[doublepost=1523112423][/doublepost]

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.

Three months is not reasonable because the examiner finds prior art and the inventor had to respond. The cycle continues until the art is exhausted.

It was never the “original concept of patents” that you could copy a patented idea “as a base for other products without paying royalties.” If the modified idea (a four legged stool) infringes the original idea (a stool with at least three legs) it has always infringed, since the origin of the patent system.
[doublepost=1523112516][/doublepost]

Good luck with that. I'd wager a surprisingly high number of patents are never used in actual products. Some corporations, I've heard, will file what amounts to predatory patents, just to stop another competing corporation from using technology that will help them. To me, it makes no sense.
[doublepost=1523064586][/doublepost]

So its totally possible that the PTO issued these patents in error. Good luck getting them to admit, and correct, that... The PTO creates most of the BS lawsuits and shackles that industry deals with. THEY have probably created a spike in attorney graduations over the years. Think of all the money they have caused to be wasted on their ineptitude. Amazing...

It’s easy to get the PTO to admit they made a mistake issuing patents. It’s called an inter partes re-exam and it happens a LOT. Most of the time they invalidate the patents.
[doublepost=1523112650][/doublepost]

“More than 40 percent of patent lawsuits are filed in a federal court in East Texas with a reputation for friendliness to plaintiffs.”

“In recent years, a single judge based in Marshall, Tex., oversaw about a quarter of all patent cases nationwide, more than the number handled by all federal judges in California, Florida and New York combined.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/supreme-court-patent-trolls-tc-heartland-kraft.html

This is outdated information. Due to recent court decisions, it’s much harder to sue in Texas. There has been a huge uptick in cases in Delaware as a result.

 

[tito2020]

Eastern District of Texas. It tells you all that you needed to hear.

take a new pill for 3 weeks and see me back better than watching a watch

 

[dannyyankou]

Apple first introduced the Apple Watch in 2015, and since its debut, the Apple Watch has featured a built-in heart rate sensor.

Little correction, they introduced it in September 2014

 

[Naimfan]

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.

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

Good luck with that one . . .

Just another patent troll. The court should award attorney's fees along with costs when it dismisses the case on Apple's forthcoming 12(b) motion.

 

[kdarling]

If they don’t have any actual product they’re a patent troll. Nuff said.

Utter nonsense. For example, universities do tons of R&D and sell licenses to those who actually make products.

Not to mention that many individual inventors don't have the funds or time to create products and therefore must sell or license their patents instead.

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.

Sure. For one thing, it could easily take that long to determine that your patent is being infringed. You can't just glance at a product and instantly know what its electronics and code are doing.

Well, thats a problem. How in the world are you granted a patent for something that has been used in another product for going on 4 years????

Unless Apple had filed for a patent on the same method, how would a patent examiner know?

Isn't the law, the law, everywhere? What's so special about the Eastern District of Texas?

That Texas district, and that of Delaware, have a reputation of both being friendly to patent holders, and of having technology savvy judges and juries. They also move pretty quickly.

In the same vein, Apple always tries to make it sure its own lawsuits are tried in Northern California, which has consistently proved friendly to Apple, along with having friendly juries that have been shown to be patent ignorant.

"It's an art form". So he is already admitting to be a patent troll.

No, he's saying he thinks he's good at filing strong patents.