DCT
1:23-cv-00937
Apple Inc v. Wrist SP Biotech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Apple Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Wrist SP Biotech LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00937, D. Del., 08/25/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, Wrist SP Biotech LLC, is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff Apple seeks a declaratory judgment that its Apple Watch products do not infringe Defendant Wrist SP Biotech's patent related to a wrist-worn biotelemetry system.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is wrist-based pulse oximetry, which uses light-based sensors to measure blood oxygen saturation, a feature of significant interest in the consumer health and wearable device markets.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows prior litigation initiated by a related entity, WristDocs, LLC, which sued Apple and others in the Western District of Texas on the same patent before voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice. The complaint alleges that Defendant Wrist SP, which it identifies as the new name for WristDocs, has since refiled against the other defendants and provided Apple with a draft complaint, creating the "imminent threat of a lawsuit" that forms the basis for this action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-08-10 | '970 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-01-01 | Apple Watch first released (year specified) |
| 2016-07-19 | '970 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-07-24 | WristDocs, LLC files suit against Apple in W.D. Texas |
| 2023-08-21 | WristDocs, LLC voluntarily dismisses its suit against Apple |
| 2023-08-25 | Wrist SP Biotech, LLC files suit against other defendants |
| 2023-08-25 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by Apple |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,392,970 - "Biotelmetry System"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,392,970, "Biotelmetry System," issued July 19, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a "lack of a secure fit" with then-current pulse oximeters, which were often fingertip clips. Even devices with wrist-worn displays still required a sensor tethered to the finger, limiting function and utility. (’970 Patent, col. 2:50-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, untethered biotelemetry system designed to be worn on the wrist. It consists of a "banding mechanism" that holds "two or more disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules" in a pocket. The band is secured by an enveloped "strut" that coils around the wrist when bending pressure is applied, aiming to provide a secure and simple fit. (’970 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:57-65).
- Technical Importance: The invention sought to improve the "portability, functionality and efficiency" of biometric monitoring by integrating the entire sensor apparatus into a single, untethered wrist-worn device. (’970 Patent, col. 1:28-30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶24).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- (a) Two or more disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules, each with a light source, photodetector, substrate, connection, and sensor cover.
- (b) A banding mechanism configured to be worn on the wrist, capable of circumscribing it, having a skin-contacting surface covering at least 50% of the wrist, and an integral pocket for the sensor modules.
- (c) A strut enveloped within the banding mechanism that coils to secure the band when bent.
- (d) A window area on the banding mechanism's skin-contacting surface to allow light to pass.
- (e) A signal processing unit to determine blood oxygen levels from the sensor signals.
- The complaint notes that because Apple does not infringe claim 1, it does not infringe any dependent claims. (Compl. ¶24).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Apple Watch, referred to as the "Accused Apple Products." (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not provide a detailed technical description of the Apple Watch's operation. It identifies the products as those accused of infringement in a prior case brought by WristDocs, LLC and in a draft complaint from Wrist SP. (Compl. ¶15, ¶19). The dispute centers on the pulse oximetry features of the Apple Watch, which Apple contends do not operate in the manner described by the asserted patent. (Compl. ¶26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes Apple's stated reasons why the Accused Apple Products do not meet the limitations of claim 1 of the '970 patent.
'970 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) two or more disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules... | Apple alleges the Accused Apple Products do not contain "two or more disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules." | ¶27 | col. 8:26-28 |
| (b) a banding mechanism... configured to be worn around the wrist... | Apple denies that the Accused Apple Products perform all limitations of claim 1. | ¶26 | col. 8:52-54 |
| (c) a strut enveloped lengthwise within said banding mechanism, wherein the strut is configured such that providing a bending pressure to the banding mechanism results in the coiling of the strut and ligature of the banding mechanism around the wrist | Apple specifically alleges the Accused Apple Products do not contain this "strut" mechanism. | ¶27 | col. 8:60-65 |
| (d) a window area on the skin contacting surface of said banding mechanism... | Apple denies that the Accused Apple Products perform all limitations of claim 1. | ¶26 | col. 8:66-col. 9:3 |
| (e) a signal processing unit... | Apple denies that the Accused Apple Products perform all limitations of claim 1. | ¶26 | col. 9:1-8 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Identified Points of Contention
- The complaint frames the dispute around specific, clear-cut differences between the claimed invention and the accused products.
- Scope Questions: The complaint directly raises the question of whether the integrated sensor array in an Apple Watch constitutes "two or more disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules." (Compl. ¶27). This suggests a dispute over the meaning of "disposable" and "module."
- Technical Questions: A central question is whether the Accused Apple Products contain any mechanical structure equivalent to the claimed "strut" that fastens by "coiling." The complaint's specific denial on this point indicates a likely factual mismatch in the mechanical operation of the respective devices' bands. (Compl. ¶27).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because Apple's non-infringement argument relies on the assertion that its products lack this feature. (Compl. ¶27). The case may turn on whether the integrated, permanent sensor package in an Apple Watch can be considered a "module" and "disposable" as envisioned by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "disposable." A party could argue it refers to the eventual disposal of the entire device at the end of its life.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a modular system where "the sensor or multiple sensors" are "inserted into the banding mechanism as needed by a user," such as a healthcare professional replacing an old sensor with a new one. (’970 Patent, col. 5:28-47). This context suggests the modules are individually replaceable components, not an integrated unit.
The Term: "a strut enveloped lengthwise within said banding mechanism... results in the coiling of the strut"
- Context and Importance: Apple specifically identifies the absence of this feature as a basis for non-infringement. (Compl. ¶27). Practitioners may focus on this term because it describes a very specific mechanical fastening system, and infringement will depend on whether the Apple Watch bands contain an equivalent structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to offer significant language supporting a broad interpretation beyond the specific mechanism described.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is highly specific, requiring a "strut" that "coils" upon "bending pressure." The specification further describes this as a "pocketed strut" that causes "ligature of the banding mechanism around the wrist," likening it to a self-fastening band. (’970 Patent, col. 8:60-65). This points toward a narrow construction limited to this "slap-bracelet" style of closure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Apple denies inducement, stating that because there is no direct infringement, there can be no indirect infringement, and further alleges it has not acted with the specific intent required. (Compl. ¶29). Apple also denies contributory infringement, citing the lack of direct infringement and the substantial non-infringing uses of the Accused Apple Products. (Compl. ¶30).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not specifically address willfulness, but the prayer for relief requests a declaration that Apple has not infringed "willfully." (Compl. p. 8, ¶a).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court's determination of the following questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "disposable pulse oximeter sensor modules," which the patent specification describes in the context of user-replaceable components, be construed to read on the highly integrated, non-modular sensor array permanently built into the Apple Watch?
A second key issue will be one of mechanical structure: do the conventional fastening mechanisms of Apple Watch bands (e.g., buckles, loops, magnets) contain any element that is structurally or functionally equivalent to the claimed "strut... [that] results in the coiling... of the banding mechanism," a feature the complaint identifies as absent from its products?