DCT
1:16-cv-00684
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Aliphcom
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Blackbird Technologies (Delaware)
- Defendant: AliphCom Inc D/B/A/ Jawbone (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00684, D. Del., 08/08/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly transacting substantial business and offering for sale and selling the accused products within the District of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "UP" and "UP24" wearable fitness trackers infringe a patent related to methods for accurately calculating distance traveled based on a user's variable stride rate.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns algorithms in wearable electronic devices that improve the accuracy of distance measurement by dynamically accounting for changes in the user's pace.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed in August 2016. In August 2017, an inter partes review (IPR) was filed against the patent-in-suit. A certificate issued in May 2020 confirms that claims 1-6 of the patent, including the primary asserted claim 6, have been cancelled. Claims 7-8 were found patentable. The cancellation of the asserted claim after the complaint's filing is a dispositive event for the infringement allegations as pleaded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-10-28 | Earliest Priority Date ('212 Patent) |
| 2002-08-13 | '212 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-08-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2017-08-29 | IPR2017-02012 Filed |
| 2017-08-30 | IPR2017-02023 Filed |
| 2017-12-05 | IPR2018-00275 Filed |
| 2020-05-26 | IPR Certificate Issued (Cancelling Claims 1-6) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212 - "Pedometer"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212, "Pedometer," issued August 13, 2002.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in prior art pedometers, which were often inaccurate. Some devices used a fixed stride length, failing to recognize that "stride length varies with rate of movement" ('212 Patent, col. 2:53-54). This led to errors in distance calculation when a user changed pace. Other devices required cumbersome or frequent re-calibration. ('212 Patent, col. 1:17-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system and method to improve accuracy by dynamically calculating a user's stride length. The system first establishes a "Base Stride Length" and "Base Stride Rate" during a calibration run over a known distance ('212 Patent, col. 4:56-65, col. 5:1-3). During subsequent use, the device continuously measures the "Actual Stride Rate" and uses a specific algorithm to calculate an "Actual Stride Length" that adjusts for the user's current pace. This dynamic calculation allows for more accurate distance tracking during a workout with varying intensity. ('212 Patent, col. 4:30-51).
- Technical Importance: The claimed technical approach sought to provide more accurate, real-time distance and pace information in a consumer-friendly device by computationally modeling the relationship between a user's speed and stride length. ('212 Patent, col. 2:23-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 6, and also references claims 2 and 5 in its background section (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16).
- Independent Claim 6 requires:
- a step counter;
- a transmitter in communication with the step counter to generate and transmit a step count signal;
- a receiver mountable on a user body portion to receive the signal; and
- a data processor programmed to:
- calculate distance by multiplying steps by a stride length that varies according to the rate of steps; and
- further programmed to derive an actual stride length from a range of stride lengths calculated from a range of corresponding stride rates.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Jawbone UP and Jawbone UP24 wearable fitness trackers (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as pedometers that use a "precise motion sensor... along with powerful algorithms, to track steps" (Compl. ¶21). A key feature alleged to be infringing is the products' calibration function. According to the complaint, calibrating the device "refines the tracker's ability to measure the distance traveled" and "improve[s] the accuracy of [the band's calculations] by calibrating it to match [the wearer's] stride" (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24). The complaint also alleges the devices use "activity intensity as an input to calculate stats including distance" (Compl. ¶27).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'212 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a step counter; | The accused UP and UP24 products are pedometers with a step counter that "uses a precise motion sensor in the band... to track steps." | ¶¶17, 21, 32 | col. 8:7 |
| a transmitter in communication with the step counter to generate a step count signal corresponding to each step and transmit the step count signal; | The complaint asserts that because the devices track and display "steps," they "must include a transmitter in communication with the step counter." | ¶¶18, 33 | col. 8:8-11 |
| a receiver mountable on a user body portion to receive the step count signal transmitted from the transmitter; | The complaint alleges the devices are mountable on a user and "must include... a receiver to receive the step count signal." | ¶¶18, 19, 33, 34 | col. 8:12-14 |
| and a data processor programmed to calculate a distance traveled by multiplying a number of steps counted by a stride length that varies according to a rate at which steps are taken, | The complaint alleges that the device "uses activity intensity as an input to calculate stats including distance" and therefore "multiplies the number of steps... by a stride length that varies in accordance with a stride rate." | ¶¶20, 27, 28, 35, 42 | col. 8:15-18 |
| and further programmed to derive an actual stride length from a range of stride lengths calculated from a range of corresponding stride rates. | The complaint alleges that the user-initiated calibration feature, which "refines the tracker's ability to measure the distance traveled," performs this function. | ¶¶22, 29, 37, 43 | col. 8:18-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the "transmitter" and "receiver" limitations can be met by internal components within a single, integrated device like the accused wristbands. The patent's specification and figures appear to illustrate these as physically separate components (e.g., a waist-mounted transmitter and a wrist-mounted receiver), which may support an argument that the claim requires two distinct housings ('212 Patent, col. 3:1-7; Fig. 1).
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on equating the accused products' "calibration" feature with the claim's requirement to "derive an actual stride length from a range of stride lengths." A key technical question is whether a one-time or occasional user calibration that "refines" a stride value is the same as the dynamic, algorithmic process described in the patent, which uses a pre-calculated "range of corresponding stride rates" to continuously adjust stride length during a workout ('212 Patent, col. 4:30-51).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "derive an actual stride length from a range of stride lengths calculated from a range of corresponding stride rates"
Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed invention's method for improving accuracy. The case may turn on whether the accused products' calibration functionality, as described in the complaint, falls within the scope of this language. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations for this element are functional and conclusory, rather than descriptive of a specific corresponding algorithm in the accused devices (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 43).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "derive," which could arguably encompass any method of arriving at a value, including a user-initiated calibration that "refines" and "improves" an existing stride length value (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific multi-step process for generating the "range of stride rates," including taking multiple sample runs at different paces (e.g., "normal pace," "faster run," "slower than normal") to build a data set from which the "actual stride length" is calculated algorithmically ('212 Patent, col. 5:1-42). This may support a narrower construction requiring a pre-populated data range, not just a single refined value.
The Term: "a transmitter ... and a receiver"
Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for this element relies on an inference: because the device displays steps, it "must include" these components (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 33). The physical architecture of the accused products (single integrated wristbands) versus the embodiment shown in the patent (separate waist and wrist units) makes the meaning of these terms critical.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly require the transmitter and receiver to be in separate housings. An argument could be made that any internal components that send and receive data signals (e.g., from a sensor to a processor) within a single device meet the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and Figure 1 explicitly depict a "waist mounted stride counter 24" and a "wrist or waist mounted display unit 26," with the transmitter located in the former and the receiver in the latter ('212 Patent, col. 3:1-12; Fig. 1). This could be used to argue that the invention, as described and claimed, contemplates physically distinct and separated components.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain any factual allegations that would support a claim for willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The analysis of the complaint as filed, in conjunction with subsequent public procedural history, raises several key questions:
- A threshold, case-dispositive issue is one of mootness: given that the asserted claim 6 was cancelled in a post-filing inter partes review, are the infringement allegations in the complaint rendered non-justiciable?
- Assuming the claim were valid, a central issue would be one of algorithmic scope: can the accused products' "calibration" feature, which the complaint alleges "refines" a user's stride measurement, be construed to meet the claimed function of "deriving an actual stride length from a range of stride lengths calculated from a range of corresponding stride rates," a process the patent specification details as a more complex, multi-sample calculation?
- A further question would be one of structural interpretation: does the claim language requiring a "transmitter" and a "receiver," which are depicted as separate physical units in the patent's primary embodiment, cover the internal electronic data pathways within a single, integrated wrist-worn device?