DCT
1:13-cv-02287
Mspbo LLC v. adidas North America Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mspbo, LLC (Colorado)
- Defendant: Adidas North America, Inc. and Adidas America, Inc. (Oregon)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Niro, Haller & Niro
- Case Identification: 1:13-cv-02287, D. Colo., 10/21/2013
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Adidas conducts business in the state, has established at least minimal contacts, and has purposefully marketed and sold the accused products to Colorado residents.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s miCoach line of personal fitness products infringes a patent related to power-saving methods for wireless data transmission between a sports sensor and a display device.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns low-power wireless communication protocols for wearable fitness sensors, a foundational technology for the personal athletics and digital health markets.
- Key Procedural History: The First Amended Complaint follows an original complaint filed on August 26, 2013, to which Adidas filed an Answer on October 11, 2013.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-03-29 | U.S. Patent No. 6,744,375 Priority Date |
| 2004-06-01 | U.S. Patent No. 6,744,375 Issue Date |
| 2013-08-26 | Original Complaint Filed |
| 2013-10-11 | Defendant's Answer to Original Complaint Filed |
| 2013-10-21 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,375 - "Device and Method for Determining and Displaying Travel or Fitness Quantities of a User of a Sports Equipment"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,744,375, issued June 1, 2004.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of high power consumption in prior art wireless sports monitoring systems. In those systems, continuous data transmission between a sensor (e.g., on an inline skate) and a display device (e.g., a wristwatch) would quickly drain the sensor's battery, reducing the device's user-friendliness and service life. (’375 Patent, col. 2:46-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the sensor's transmitter and the display's receiver are synchronized to conserve power. Both units are switched off for most of the time. They are switched on only during brief, defined, and overlapping intervals to transmit and receive data, drastically reducing overall energy use. (’375 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:35-51). The patent’s Figure 3 graphically depicts this concept, showing a short transmission pulse within a much longer, inactive time interval. (’375 Patent, FIG. 3).
- Technical Importance: This synchronized, intermittent transmission method was a key step in enabling small, long-lasting, battery-powered wireless sensors for the emerging wearable technology market. (’375 Patent, col. 2:5-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 9, and method claim 10. (Compl. ¶¶36-38).
- Independent Claim 1 (Device) requires:
- A first microcontroller associated with sports equipment for processing travel data.
- A transmitter to send the data to a receiver.
- The receiver having a second microcontroller for further processing or display.
- The transmitter only transmits within defined intervals and is "switched off" between them.
- The receiver is "synchronized" with the transmitter to be "switched on only when" a transmission is expected and "switched off" when one is not.
- Independent Claim 9 (Device) requires:
- This claim recites structurally similar elements to Claim 1 but uses means-plus-function language (e.g., "means for transmitting," "means for receiving"). This form of claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) typically ties the scope of the claim elements to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities include the “miCoach Pacer Bundle,” “miCoach Stride Sensor,” “miCoach Connect,” “miCoach Speed Cell,” “miCoach Speed Cell Bluetooth Smart Compatible,” the “miCoach Running” app, and the “miCoach Multi-Sport” app. (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the miCoach Stride Sensor and Speed Cell products are sensors that obtain and wirelessly transmit a user's athletic performance data (e.g., pace, distance, stride rate). (Compl. ¶15). The miCoach Pacer, Connect, and associated mobile applications are alleged to be receiver devices that receive and process this data for the user. (Compl. ¶¶16, 25, 27, 28). The complaint states these products use standard wireless protocols such as ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart. (Compl. ¶¶17-18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'375 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a first microcontroller associated with said sports equipment for at least recording or partially processing travel data... | The miCoach Stride Sensor allegedly "obtains data representing a user's pace, distance and stride rate." | ¶15 | col. 7:1-6 |
| b) a transmitter for transmitting the travel data to a receiver having a display; | The miCoach Stride Sensor is alleged to "wirelessly transmit[] this data to the miCoach Pacer." | ¶15 | col. 7:7-8 |
| c) said receiver having a second microcontroller for at least further processing or displaying the partially processed travel data; | The miCoach Pacer allegedly "processes data representing a user's pace, distance and stride rate received from the miCoach Stride Sensor." The miCoach Connect allegedly "receives and processes data." | ¶¶16, 25 | col. 7:9-12 |
| d) said transmitter only transmits within defined transmitting intervals such that between said intervals when said transmitter is not transmitting, said transmitter is switched off; and | It is alleged that a "transmitter in the miCoach Stride Sensor transmits data to a receiver within defined transmitting intervals such that the transmitter is switched off between intervals when it is not transmitting." | ¶22 | col. 7:13-16 |
| e) said receiver is synchronized with said transmitter such that said receiver is switched on only when said transmitter is expected to transmit and switched off when transmission is not expected from said transmitter. | It is alleged that a "receiver in the miCoach Connect is synchronized with a transmitter such that the receiver is switched on only when the transmitter is expected to transmit data...and switched off when a transmission is not expected." | ¶26 | col. 7:17-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused devices' transmitters and receivers are "switched off" between transmission intervals. (Compl. ¶¶22, 26). A central technical question will be what "switched off" means in the context of the accused ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart protocols. Do the radio components enter a true power-off state, or a low-power "sleep" or "listening" state? The answer will determine if the operation of the accused products meets this claim limitation.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the alleged synchronization in the accused products is the same as the synchronization required by the claims. The complaint alleges the miCoach Connect receiver is "switched on only when the transmitter is expected to transmit data." (Compl. ¶26). The patent, however, describes a specific start-up synchronization process where a user activates the receiver, which then listens for a signal from the transmitter for a defined period (e.g., 30 seconds) to establish synchronization. (’375 Patent, col. 6:25-39). A dispute may arise over whether the continuous, protocol-based synchronization of the accused products is equivalent to the specific user-initiated synchronization process described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "synchronized"
- Context and Importance: This term is the functional core of the invention. How the transmitter and receiver are "synchronized" dictates how power is saved. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the complaint's allegations of synchronization (Compl. ¶26) must map to the claim's meaning.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the goal of synchronization is to make the transmission and reception intervals "overlap to a large extent" to minimize power consumption. (’375 Patent, col. 2:51-56). This could support an interpretation where any system that aligns active radio times, regardless of method, is "synchronized."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific implementation where synchronization is initiated when "the display device 50 is activated by the user," causing the receiver to listen for a "start time interval" to receive a "first signal" from the transmitter. (’375 Patent, col. 6:25-33). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, user-initiated pairing event rather than just a continuous, protocol-level time alignment.
The Term: "switched off"
- Context and Importance: The power-saving benefit depends on the transmitter and receiver being "switched off" between transmissions. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern low-power radios often use "sleep" modes that are not a complete cessation of power. Whether such a state constitutes being "switched off" under the patent is a likely point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s objective is to reduce power consumption to extend battery life. (’375 Patent, col. 2:10-18). This purpose could support reading "switched off" to include any very low-power state that achieves this objective, even if not a complete power cut.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the receiver being "switched on only when a transmission is expected" and that if no signal is received during a start interval, the "display device 50 switches off again and must be manually switched on." (’375 Patent, col. 6:33-39). This language may suggest a complete deactivation of the relevant circuitry, not merely a low-power standby mode.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement against Adidas for "providing, and encouraging and aiding others to use" the accused miCoach products, identifying the direct infringers as purchasers. (Compl. ¶38).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Adidas had "knowledge of its infringement of the '375 patent before this suit was filed." (Compl. ¶39). It further alleges that the infringement has been "willful and deliberate" and with "at least reckless disregard for MSPBO's patent rights." (Compl. ¶43). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge, such as a prior notice letter or citation.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can the term "synchronized", as described in the patent with a specific user-initiated start-up procedure, be construed to cover the standardized, protocol-based time-division multiplexing allegedly used by the accused miCoach products?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the functioning of the accused products' radios meet the "switched off" limitation of the claims? The case will likely require expert testimony on whether the low-power "sleep" states common in ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart protocols constitute being "switched off" as understood in the context of the ’375 patent.
- A final question relates to means-plus-function interpretation: For asserted claim 9, the infringement analysis will depend on identifying the specific structures in the patent's specification that correspond to the claimed "means for" transmitting and receiving, and then determining if the accused devices contain equivalent structures.