Abramson v. Zepp North America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Safety Direct LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Zepp North America, Inc. (Delaware, with principal place of business in California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Murthy Patent Law Inc.
• Case Identification: 8:23-cv-01424, C.D. Cal., 08/07/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant resides in the district, has its principal place of business there, maintains regular and established places of business, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Amazfit line of smartwatches and associated software infringes a patent related to systems for preventing the loss or theft of mobile devices through proximity-based alarms.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns pairing a mobile phone with a secondary device (e.g., a wearable) to trigger an alert when the two are separated by a specific, short distance, providing an immediate anti-loss or anti-theft notification.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit was assigned from the inventor to Plaintiff on June 20, 2023. Plaintiff also alleges that it provided Defendant with actual notice of the patent-in-suit on July 27, 2023. The complaint quotes from the patent's July 18, 2018 Notice of Allowance, highlighting a "sync to activate" feature as a key point of patentability over the prior art, which may signal a focus on this element and potential prosecution history estoppel arguments.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,115,292 - "System and Method for automatic loss prevention of mobile communication devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,115,292, "System and Method for automatic loss prevention of mobile communication devices," issued October 30, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem where mobile devices are easily lost or stolen, and conventional tracking applications are often too slow to be effective, as a thief can quickly disable the device or move out of range (’292 Patent, col. 1:7-19). It also notes that standard Bluetooth alarms that trigger only upon total signal loss are not useful, as the range (e.g., 100 meters) is too great for immediate recovery (’292 Patent, col. 1:20-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part system: software on a mobile device ('ALPAS') that communicates with a separate trigger device ('ALPAT'). When the ALPAT moves beyond a short, user-defined distance (e.g., 2 meters) from the mobile device, the ALPAS activates a loud audio and bright visual alarm on the phone, immediately alerting the owner to the potential loss or theft (’292 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-34). A key feature is a "sync-to-activate" system that can automatically reactivate the alarm functionality if the trigger device is taken out of range and then returns, preventing a lapse in protection (’292 Patent, col. 3:25-40).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a more immediate and proactive loss prevention system compared to reactive GPS tracking by using a short-range, user-configurable proximity fence to trigger an immediate, high-visibility alarm (’292 Patent, col. 2:27-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 6 (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 27).
• Independent Claim 1 (System) includes the following essential elements:
  • A mobile device with a processor and memory.
  • "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Software ('ALPAS')" installed on the mobile device.
  • A device functioning as an "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Trigger ('ALPAT')."
  • An "owner-defined distance" that triggers an alarm.
  • The ALPAS having the ability to detect when the ALPAT has moved away beyond the owner-defined distance.
  • The ALPAS having the ability to activate a specific alarm (flashing screen and repeated audio message).
  • An option to enter an "at home safe zone" to deactivate alarms.
  • An option to turn on a "sync to activate" feature.
  • A specific reactivation logic: if the ALPAT is taken beyond the defined distance and then returns, the ALPAS reactivates if the "sync-to-activate" option is on.
• Independent Claim 6 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
  • Installing ALPAS on a mobile device.
  • The ALPAS communicating with an ALPAT.
  • The ALPAS constantly analyzing whether the ALPAT has moved away beyond an owner-defined distance.
  • Activating a specific alarm (flashing screen and repeated audio message) if the ALPAT moves beyond the distance.
  • Providing options for "at home safe zone" and "sync to activate."
  • A specific reactivation step corresponding to the "sync to activate" logic.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this is common practice.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names a wide range of Defendant's smartwatches, including the Amazfit Lifestyle, GTR, GTS, T-Rex, Cheetah, Falcon, and Bip series, collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are wearable electronic devices that pair with a user's smartphone via a software application (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 29). The complaint alleges these products, in combination with their associated software, provide functionality that directly infringes the ’292 Patent. The allegations center on features that monitor the connection between the smartwatch and the phone and provide alerts when they are separated, which falls within the market context of smartwatch-phone integration and anti-loss features (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not attach the referenced claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶35, Exhibit 7). The following table is constructed based on the narrative breakdown of claim elements in the complaint body and the general infringement allegations.

’292 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the standard "anti-lost" or "phone-finder" alerts in the Accused Products meet the specific requirements of the claims. For example, does the accused alarm "flash the screen... brightly on and off" and "play a pre-recorded audio message repeatedly" as claimed, or does it utilize a more generic notification? The complaint does not provide specific evidence on the precise nature of the accused alarms.
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on the interpretation of the "sync to activate" functionality. The complaint highlights this feature, quoting the patent examiner's reasons for allowance (Compl. ¶18). This raises the question of whether the Accused Products' standard Bluetooth re-pairing behavior constitutes the specific, conditional "reactivation" logic described in the claim, or if the claim requires a distinct, optional mode that the accused system lacks.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "the ALPAS is configured to reactivate if the “sync-to-activate” option is turned on"
• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the central feature distinguished over the prior art, as alleged by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶18, 26). The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the Defendant's products, which presumably re-establish a Bluetooth link automatically when coming back into range, perform this specific, conditional "reactivation." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement and may be influenced by arguments related to prosecution history estoppel.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the system in general terms, stating it "cally activates ALPAS if the mobile device and ALPAT are more than a user defined distance apart, and then either the mobile device or the ALPAT moves such that their distance apart is less than the user defined distance" (’292 Patent, col. 3:25-29). This could support an argument that any automatic re-arming of the alert upon re-entering the proximity zone meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific sequence: the ALPAT is taken away, then returns, and then the ALPAS reactivates if the option is on. This suggests a specific logical flow, not just a general re-pairing. The specification further details this, distinguishing it from a simple "at home safe zone" deactivation (’292 Patent, col. 3:40-50). The explicit mention of this as an "option" that can be "turned on" may also support a narrower view requiring a user-selectable mode beyond default behavior.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by claiming Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by promoting the Accused Products on its website and providing user manuals and instructions for their use (Compl. ¶39).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff sent an email notifying Defendant of the ’292 Patent on July 27, 2023, and that Defendant sent an email acknowledging the notice on July 28, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶ 21-23). Continued alleged infringement after these dates forms the basis of the claim.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and prosecution history: can the "sync to activate" limitation, which the complaint frames as the key inventive concept, be construed to read on the standard Bluetooth re-pairing and alert re-enabling functions of a commercial smartwatch? Or does the claim, informed by the prosecution history cited in the complaint, require a more specific, optional logic sequence that the accused systems may not possess?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the accused system's alert functionality meet the precise claim requirements, such as an alarm that "will flash the screen of the mobile device brightly on and off and play a pre-recorded audio message repeatedly"? The outcome may depend on whether the evidence shows the accused alerts are generic system notifications or the specific, multi-faceted alarms recited in the claims.