Wyoming IP Holdings LLC v. Zepp Health Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wyoming Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Zepp Health Corporation (China) and Zepp North America, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea—IP Trial Boutique
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01024, C.D. Cal., 02/06/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for Zepp Health Corporation, a foreign entity, in any judicial district. For Zepp North America, Inc., venue is alleged based on its maintaining a regular and established business presence in the Central District of California, including soliciting customers, retaining employees, and generating substantial revenue within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Zepp app, featuring the AI-powered Zepp Coach, in conjunction with Amazfit smartwatches, infringes a patent related to systems for providing instructional feedback by comparing a user's actual physical action to a standard action.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of digital fitness and personalized health monitoring, a market segment characterized by the use of wearable sensors and AI to provide automated, data-driven coaching.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was examined and allowed by the USPTO after consideration of 261 U.S. patents, 82 patent applications, and several non-patent literature articles, which the plaintiff may use to support the patent's validity.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,565,888 - “Instruction Production” (Issued Feb. 18, 2020)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the traditional method of improving a physical skill, such as a golf swing, by hiring a professional coach as being potentially "time consuming, expensive, and have other negative aspects" (’888 Patent, col. 2:55-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that automates this coaching process. It uses a "difference component" to identify a variance between a user's "actual action" (e.g., their real golf swing) and a "standard action" (e.g., a professional's swing). An "instruction component" then generates a specific instruction for the user to correct their action, which is then disclosed via an "output component" (’888 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system can be embodied in a mobile device that monitors the user and provides corrective feedback (’888 Patent, col. 3:28-32).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for automated, data-driven, and personalized performance feedback, making sophisticated coaching accessible without the need for a live human instructor (’888 Patent, col. 2:57-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 5 and 17 (Compl. ¶28).
• Independent Claim 5 recites a system comprising:
  • A "score component" to assign a score to an aspect of a user's actual action, specifically accounting for the "physical range of motion".
  • A "selection component" to select a training plan from a set based on that score.
  • An "output component" to present the selected training plan.
  • A "reception component" to receive a user's indication of desire for the plan.
  • An "appointment component" to appoint the selected plan as the current plan.
  • A requirement that the system components "implement, at least in part, by way of non-software."
• Independent Claim 17 recites a system with nearly identical components as Claim 5, but differs in two key ways:
  • The "score component" accounts for "speed" instead of "physical range of motion".
  • The system components are implemented "by way of a combination of hardware and software" instead of "non-software."
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 9, 10, and 11, which add further limitations related to scoring, feedback, and the nature of the training plan (Compl. ¶28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the "Zepp app, that comprises a feature of Zepp Coach, an AI-powered software, that acts as a digital fitness coach and works along with Amazfit smartwatches and wearable devices to create personalized training programs" (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Zepp Coach is an AI software feature that functions as a digital fitness coach (Compl. ¶23). The complaint supports its venue allegations with a screenshot from ZoomInfo identifying Zepp Health Corp as operating in the "Health, Wellness and Fitness industry" with a headquarters in Milpitas, California (Compl. Fig. 1, p. 4). A second visual, a Google Maps screenshot, is provided to show the physical location of the Milpitas office (Compl. Fig. 2, p. 4). The core functionality appears to be the generation of "personalized training programs" based on data gathered by associated wearable devices (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B to detail its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶28, ¶33). The narrative infringement theory is that the Accused Instrumentalities "practice the technology claimed by the '888 Patent" and that their operation satisfies all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶33). The system allegedly uses data from Amazfit wearables to analyze a user's actions, score their performance, and select and present personalized training plans, thereby mapping to the claimed system components (Compl. ¶23).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions:
    • A primary question will be whether the function of the Zepp Coach AI in generating a "personalized training program" constitutes "appoint[ing] the selected training plan as the current training plan" as required by the "appointment component" limitation in both asserted independent claims.
    • For Claim 5, a key dispute may arise over whether the accused system is implemented "by way of non-software." Plaintiff may argue this is met by the physical sensors in the Amazfit smartwatches, while Defendant may contend the core logic is purely software operating on general-purpose hardware.
  • Technical Questions:
    • What evidence will show that the Zepp Coach AI performs the specific function of assigning a "score" based on "physical range of motion" (Claim 5) or "speed" (Claim 17), and then uses that score to "select" a plan from a pre-existing set, as opposed to a more dynamic or holistic AI-driven plan generation process? The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this technical operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "appointment component"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in both asserted independent claims 5 and 17. The dispute will likely center on what actions satisfy "appoint[ing] the selected training plan as the current training plan for the user." The outcome could determine whether merely suggesting a workout is sufficient to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A party might argue that in the context of a mobile app, presenting a plan to a user is the functional equivalent of "appointing" it for their use.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "appoint" and the phrase "current training plan" suggests a formal change in system state, rather than just a passive display. Claim 6, which depends from Claim 5, recites a "change component configured to receive a training plan change request to replace the current training plan," which may imply that a "current training plan" is a distinct, established status within the system (’888 Patent, col. 29:15-19).

• The Term: "score component"

  • Context and Importance: This term is also central to both asserted independent claims. Its definition will determine what kind of analysis the accused product must perform. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "score" is construed to require a specific numerical output, a system that uses a different form of qualitative AI assessment might not infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that any form of evaluation or assessment, quantitative or qualitative, qualifies as a "score."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of a "scoring system" for boxing that assigns numerical "points" based on punch form and impact, which could be used to argue that a "score" implies a quantitative value (’888 Patent, col. 5:25-68).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants "distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '888 Patent" (Compl. ¶31).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its (missing) claim chart provides Defendants with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement would be willful (Compl. ¶¶30, 32).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and functional mapping: can the plaintiff demonstrate that the AI-driven process of generating a "personalized training program" in the Zepp Coach performs the specific, discrete functions of the claimed "score component," "selection component," and particularly the "appointment component"? The definition of "appoint" will be critical.
• A second central question will address the means of implementation: for Claim 5, can the system's operation be tied to the physical hardware of the Amazfit wearables to satisfy the "non-software" limitation, or will the court view the accused functionality as purely software-based, potentially leading to non-infringement of that claim?
• A key evidentiary question will be, in the absence of the detailed claim chart, what proof the plaintiff will offer to show that the accused system's internal operations meet each specific limitation of the asserted claims, particularly given the high-level description of the AI functionality provided in the complaint.