Apple Facing Lawsuit Over Heart Rate Sensor in Apple Watch

[richman555]

A well know and practiced ‘art form’.

Some paint, some play music, some dance. Also some acquire patents.

 

[G5isAlive]

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...

How many patents do you have to reach any of these conclusions? Have you ever dealt with the PTO? I have dozens of patents in a technical field and my experience is that they are competent, knowledgeable, and can admit mistakes when new data is presented. The PTO is not to blame here. At all. The lawyer spike is due to greed of others and an increasing sense of entitlement with decreasing integrity. Witness the willingness to blame others while having no real knowledge.
[doublepost=1523200887][/doublepost]

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...

If the law was the law why would we even need judges? Why would a person’s political views be crucial to picking Supreme Court justices? Its not just graft that is on trial here, it’s very real court bias.
[doublepost=1523201883][/doublepost]

As a patent attorney, you're biased and should recuse yourself from this discussion.



Maybe, but this isn't about balance; it's about the tech industry. Patents may work great in some fields like health, but they're an unmitigated disaster of mutually assured destruction in tech. The only party consistently served by tech patents is… oh, hang on, that's right: patent attorneys.

With such a fast-paced industry, patent law is a terrible idea, especially with a term of 20 years. Twenty years. Twenty years ago, the iPhone, iPod and even iMac weren't a thing, Mac OS X and Windows XP or even Windows 2000 weren't, Facebook hadn't launched, AOL was still huge, and instead of Wikipedia, we used Microsoft Encarta. Cellphones were just starting to pick up in the mass market, and Netscape 4 and IE 4 were the hot thing du jour.

It is absolute utter garbage to protect something tech-related for two decades.

What do your examples have to do with your conclusion? The fact that we have iPhones have not stopped other smart phones, Windows didn’t stop the Mac or vice versa, 20 years protection only stops someone from making iPhones, not smart phones. Once again people want something without doing the work. 20 years is fine.

 

[lkrupp]

I get angry when I consider that part of what I pay for Apple products goes to defend these horse manure lawsuits.

 

[HVDynamo]

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...

Watch this:

 

[LawJolla]

As a patent attorney, you're biased and should recuse yourself from this discussion.



Maybe, but this isn't about balance; it's about the tech industry. Patents may work great in some fields like health, but they're an unmitigated disaster of mutually assured destruction in tech. The only party consistently served by tech patents is… oh, hang on, that's right: patent attorneys.

With such a fast-paced industry, patent law is a terrible idea, especially with a term of 20 years. Twenty years. Twenty years ago, the iPhone, iPod and even iMac weren't a thing, Mac OS X and Windows XP or even Windows 2000 weren't, Facebook hadn't launched, AOL was still huge, and instead of Wikipedia, we used Microsoft Encarta. Cellphones were just starting to pick up in the mass market, and Netscape 4 and IE 4 were the hot thing du jour.

It is absolute utter garbage to protect something tech-related for two decades.

Silly and confused.

 

[chucker23n1]

Silly and confused.

You’re an attorney, and this is all you got? Why don’t you help my confusion and explain how patents in tech help fulfill their original purpose of encouraging innovation?

Gee, IE 4 sounds so innovative and amazing in 2018!

 

[bensisko]

I’m still amazed how freely people comment and pass judgement on systems where they are completely ignorant. I’m sure that I do it too.

Speaking as a patent attorney, I’d encourage those in the “the system is so stupid, how come everyone else is so dumb and I’m so smart” chorus that your line of reasoning has been considered and dismissed by thousands more knowledgeable and likely before you were born.

Systems are never perfect because they operate under tensions from competing interests. Our job is to find the right balance. And on balance, the patent laws are doing their job. The USPTO, however, could use a lot of help.

The patient laws are doing their job eh?

I worked with a guy whose father invented a new kind of water filtration system and got a patient for it. He built a company around it and started selling his product. Shortly thereafter, a couple of guys formed a LLC, and started selling his patented product, undercutting him in cost (because they had no R&D). He sued them and won. The LLC folded. Victory, right? The same guys formed another LLC and did the exact same thing. He sued again, and won. Then another copycat did the same thing. Sued and won. Sounds like a good story, except since these are LLCs, the guy got little to no money, lost customers (partially due to being undersold and partially to the knock-offs being associated with his product), AND had to pay the legal fees. It didn't take long before the legal costs of having to continue to fight with his patient outweighed the effort it was worth keeping the company around. He ended up having to shut down the business and give up the fight.

If this was a one-time thing, I could pass it off as bad luck or even bad business... but it's a story I hear more and more. The legal fees in having to defend a patient against predatory people/companies, patient trolls, and the patient office granting patients to people who don't deserve them tell me that it's a broken system.

I get that there are a ton of things to balance in such a system, but let's not kid ourselves saying that the system is doing it's job.

 

[jinnj]

There seems to be an escalation of lawsuits with Apple.. Seems every product they bring out now is face with one.

P.T.s will always go to the companies with money to settle and once they do everyone else is in trouble.

Litigation lawyers go for the money, otherwise there’s no value. Apple is a great target.

Apple seems to give zero F’s about absorbing other people’s IP, usually under seemingly shady circumstances.

Please provide further proof of this statement?

 

[javanni]

Mohammed... Islam? Really?
How is this not a fake name?

 

[bensisko]

Thanks.
I guess I meant, not so much sell-able, as you point out, but a real item that is in use as you pointed out.
Though I would say, if you come up with some product/method that's great to solve a problem/issue.

Then act a total dick and don't let anyone else use that, then the world as a whole suffers, so I'd have to consider it on a case by case bases.

EG. if you made round wheel cars for your own site/company to use, and the rest of the world could not use round wheels.
That would make you a dick and should be overruled.

I guess I would disagree. I don’t think it matters if you are using it directly in a product or indirectly to produce a product, or even for your personal use, it’s your own invention and you can do what ever you like with it - it doesn’t have to benefit everybody.

Abraham Lincoln invented a method for dislodging barges from sandbars - he has the right to keep that within the company he worked for as a competitive advantage over other shipping companies instead of making it into a product (“Ship with us - your product will get safely to it’s destination without worrying about sandbars!”).

 

[jona2125]

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?

I'm guessing because back in 2015 they were actually working at the University of Michigan developing glucose monitoring. With the rumors that Apple wants to add this in or is at least trying, makes sense why they might go for it now.

 

[derek4484]

Quite hilarious. All the Apple Fan Boys come out in droves and call this guy a patent troll. Whatever that may even be. This guy (and his company) own legitimate patents. Apple has allegedly infringed on said patents. This guy has sued. That's how it works.

Apple owns thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of patents for which they have never gotten a working prototype and you can bet your house that if Samsung or LG or Google made a product that infringed on one of their patents, they'd sue the heck out of them. Heck they sued Samsung over a design patent....a rectangle with rounded corners....Like I have never even seen that shape before. Apple is the original patent troll.
[doublepost=1523279491][/doublepost]

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.

So he should sue in the ninth circuit in California which has a history of siding with Apple? Why wouldnt a patent holder want the best advantage?
[doublepost=1523279926][/doublepost]

This is an area Trump should step in if he wants to help American business. Kill all the patent trolls. Change the law so that if you don’t actually use the patent within a certain number of years, you lose the rights to it. Also get rid of patents for too broad and obvious use.

You mean something broad and obvious like....a rectangle that has rounded corners?

 

[oneMadRssn]

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.

3 years is not enough. It takes drugs 5-10 years just to go through proper safety trials and studies before they can be sold to consumers. Even outside the pharma space, it takes years for a tech company to go from idea to commercialization. Even the fastest growing tech companies can't survive with 3 year patents. Nobody would ever invest in a company if their IP was protected for such a short amount of time.

The problem with the patent system is not the term length. 20 years from initial filing date is fine.
[doublepost=1523284893][/doublepost]

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.

Citation needed. All objective data I have seen (mainly from Lex Machina, which tracks patent litigation outcomes) shows that final outcomes in EDTX are no different than any other jurisdiction.

One advantages of EDTX is that it moves quicker than any other litigation because the judges there are experienced with patent law, but isn't that good? Don't most people always complain about drawn-out cases that takes years? However, quickness is usually good for the plaintiff and not good for the defendant that wants to just delay. Another advantage of EDTX is the judges don't usually grant early dismissals of cases and they like the cases to go to trial. This is also good for plaintiffs and bad for defendants from a strategy point of view, but it creates a better public record.

However, in terms of final outcomes, there is zero evidence that EDTX is "known for siding with patent holders." That is just a lie.
[doublepost=1523285443][/doublepost]

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?

How quickly do you think it should have happened? The Apple Watch came out in 2015. Even if it was on their radar right away, they still have to do the following: buy a bunch of apple watches, tear them down, reverse engineer the sensor, prepare evidence of use charts, obtain funding for litigation, conduct due diligence on the patents' validity, draft a complaint and prepare for litigation.

All of that is easily a year of full-time work for an attorney. But they probably aren't working on just one case, but rather several at the same time. Doing a proper chip or sensor level reverse engineering can take 6 months or more all by itself from good firms like Chipworks. Obtaining funding from a good partner can take 6-12 months - most responsible private equity firms or banks don't just throw money at cases willy-nilly, they do their own internal analysis and due diligence. The rest of the steps I listed are 1-2 months each.

So 3 years after release is actually a very reasonable amount of time to file a patent case.

To answer your second question, the answer is yes. Patent litigation is expensive. Very very few do it on their own dime, and litigation finance companies won't invest unless the potential reward at the end is worth it for them.

 

[jimbobb24]

How do you know you are a patent troll? You file in Eastern Texas. Do those judges feel embarrassed people seek them out?

 

[raghu8912]

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.

I disagree, this is not fair to people who are doing research in universities, they don't have money to start making a product.

But i do agree that this guy is a patent troll for sure.

 

[kdarling]

How do you know you are a patent troll? You file in Eastern Texas. Do those judges feel embarrassed people seek them out?

Actually, the first company to seek out the district was Texas Instruments. Hardly a troll.

They chose it because Dallas courts were backlogged with drug cases, a situation that luckily doesn't exist in East Texas. There TI was able to get a trial scheduled quickly. Plus the judges there don't allow long delays in discovery, and are less likely to summarily invalidate a patent.

After TI used East Texas, others began to use it too.

 

[djangofan]

This image is from a full page ad in OMNI magazine, November 1983, p.175 . DAK Industries Incorporated . 10845 Vanowen St., N. Hollywood, CA, 91605 :