Apple Watch could infringe a patent filed by Sportbrain Holdings
Apple should once again face a patent infringement lawsuit . In this case it is a patent related to the operation of personal data capture devices with sensors for further processing . Its owner, Sportbrain Holdings considers that the Apple Watch infringes the document.
Data capture by a portable device, patented
Registered Patent No. 7454002 describes a way of " integrating the personal data capture function into a portable computing device and a wireless communication device ". These data would be collected by a sensor, such as heart rate. They would then be stored and possibly transferred to a server. Sportbrain Holdings claims that the Apple Watch and iPhone motion coprocessor can perform this function, sending the data to Apple for analysis and feedback .
This functionality is present in most of the portable devices on the market that include the monitoring of the physical condition, which has led Sportbrain Holding to file lawsuits against manufacturers like Samsung, HP, Garmin, Fitbit, Pebble, Nike and of course, Apple . Neither are software companies that develop sports monitoring apps, against which more than 80 lawsuits are filed .
The company filed a lawsuit against Apple on Feb. 7 in the Northern District Court of Illinois. It requires compensation with pre and post trial interest, damages for intentional infraction, expenses and attorneys' fees, in addition to any other compensation that the court considers apply.
A planned move against Apple Watch and the patent for review
The patent, the original property of Sportbrain Inc, was transferred to Sportbrain Holdings in January 2016, just before claims were filed, thus preparing the strategy. But on February 10, three days after filing the lawsuit against Apple, the US Patent Office confirmed that it was going to review its validity, since there are two prior patents that it is likely will pick up the collection aspects And data analysis from devices . According to ArsTechnica, the Director General of Unified Patents, Kevin Jakel, is an example of a patent that is invalid and should never have been issued .
The first date of 1998 and is in the name of Liquid Spark. Describes a GPS-based monitor. The second is owned by Nike and mentions the collection of data from a product such as sports shoes.
And you, what do you think of this type of industrial rights claim? , Do you think that they only seek to benefit from the success of other products?