DCT
1:24-cv-20360
BT Wearables LLC v. Citizen Watch Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BT Wearables LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. (Japan) and Citizen Watch Company of America, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT + GILCHRIST, PA
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-20360, S.D. Fla., 04/18/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain established and regular places of business in the Southern District of Florida, including specific retail locations in Sunrise and Miami, and have committed acts of patent infringement in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Citizen CZ Smartwatch products infringe six U.S. patents related to wearable personal monitoring systems and smartwatches.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to wearable electronic devices, such as smartwatches, that use various sensors to monitor a user's physiological data and physical activities for health and wellness purposes.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are related through a series of continuation applications. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-06-30 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents |
| 2015-12-18 | U.S. Patent No. 9,204,796 Issued |
| 2017-10-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,775,520 Issued |
| 2019-07-30 | U.S. Patent No. 10,362,940 Issued |
| 2020-08-04 | U.S. Patent No. 10,729,336 Issued |
| 2021-07-06 | U.S. Patent No. 11,051,704 Issued |
| 2024-01-23 | U.S. Patent No. 11,877,821 Issued |
| 2024-04-18 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,204,796 - Personal Emergency Response (PER) System, Issued Dec. 18, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the inadequacy of personal wellness monitoring for elderly and disabled populations circa 2006, noting that home care is often sporadic and lacks continuous supervision, while professional monitoring is expensive and limited. (Compl. ¶¶18, 20; ’796 Patent, col. 1:13-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system with one or more sensors on a "mobile object" to detect movement. A processor and wireless transceiver are used to "classify sequences of movements into groups of similar postures each represented by a model" and then apply that model to identify a user's activity, such as a fall. (’796 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:54-67). This system aims to create a low-cost, real-time, and unobtrusive home monitoring solution. (Compl. ¶30).
- Technical Importance: The technology sought to enable continuous and automated home care by providing an alternative to sporadic nurse visits and the lack of monitoring equipment in a home environment. (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶60).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system comprising one or more sensors to detect movement of a mobile object.
- A processor coupled to the sensors and a wireless transceiver.
- The processor and transceiver are configured to classify sequences of movements into groups of similar postures represented by a model and to apply the model to identify an activity.
- The processor identifies elemental motions and identifies the activity by matching the sequence of identified elemental motions with stored sequences of elemental motions corresponding to an activity.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶49).
U.S. Patent No. 9,775,520 - Wearable Personal Monitoring System, Issued Oct. 3, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problems as the ’796 Patent, stemming from a common specification, related to the need for continuous, low-cost wellness monitoring in a home environment. (Compl. ¶¶18, 20).
- The Patented Solution: This patent focuses specifically on a wrist-worn apparatus. The solution involves a housing with an accelerometer, a radio frequency transceiver, and a processor that analyzes signals from the accelerometer to determine if they indicate a "predefined exercise." The processor then computes calories burned based on both the accelerometer signals and the identified predefined exercise, and transmits the calorie data to a remote device. (’520 Patent, Abstract; col. 30:1-17).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a technical solution for tracking a user's specific physical activities, such as predefined exercises, to calculate metrics like calories burned, automating data collection that was previously difficult in a home setting. (Compl. ¶30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claims 1 and 17. (Compl. ¶¶73, 75).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A wearable monitoring apparatus with a housing adapted to be worn on a wrist.
- An accelerometer, a radio frequency transceiver, and a processor disposed in the housing.
- The processor analyzes signals from the accelerometer to determine if they are indicative of a predefined exercise.
- The processor computes calories burned based on the accelerometer signals and the predefined exercise.
- The processor transmits the calories burned to a remote device via the transceiver.
- The complaint notes that Claim 17 adds a display and the generation of an alert message. (Compl. ¶75). The right to assert dependent claims is reserved. (Compl. ¶73).
U.S. Patent No. 10,362,940 - Personal Emergency Response (PER) System, Issued Jul. 30, 2019
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family as the ’796 and ’520 patents, is directed to a wearable monitoring apparatus worn on the wrist. It uses an accelerometer and a user input device to allow a user to select a "predefined exercise," and a processor then computes activity data based on signals from the accelerometer for that selected exercise. (’940 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶100).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the Accused Products' wristwatch housing, accelerometer, processor, and user input (touchscreen and/or buttons) that enables a user to choose a predefined exercise and gather activity data. (Compl. ¶112).
U.S. Patent No. 11,877,821 - Personal Monitoring Apparatus, Issued Jan. 23, 2024
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a wrist-worn monitoring apparatus with multiple wireless transceivers (one for Bluetooth®, one for a different protocol). It includes a GPS receiver, accelerometer, and heart rate sensor, and its processor computes sleep time and body position data. The apparatus is also configured to execute a telephone call by transmitting voice signals to a cellular telephone. (’821 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶125).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Citizen CZ Smartwatch Sport and Casual Touchscreen models, alleging they contain a housing, wrist band, two wireless transceivers (Bluetooth® and Wi-Fi®), GPS, accelerometer, heart rate sensor, and a processor that computes sleep time and executes telephone calls via a connected cellular phone. (Compl. ¶135).
U.S. Patent No. 10,729,336 - Smart Watch, Issued Aug. 4, 2020
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system comprising a wearable appliance (wrist-watch), a telephone, and a remote server. The watch has sensors to detect vital signs and body activity. The system is characterized by the telephone being wirelessly coupled to the watch and "off-loading at least a portion of speech processing" from the watch's processor. (’336 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1, 12, and 18. (Compl. ¶148).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products, in combination with a wirelessly paired smartphone (the "telephone") and remote cloud servers (e.g., Amazon Alexa), form the infringing system. The key accused feature is the smartphone allegedly offloading speech processing to the CZ Smartwatch. (Compl. ¶159).
U.S. Patent No. 11,051,704 - Smart Watch, Issued Jul. 6, 2021
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system similar to the ’336 Patent, comprising a wearable appliance, a telephone, and a remote server. The distinguishing feature is that the watch's processor "detects a heart problem," and the telephone performs speech processing while the watch's processor captures speech. (’704 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1, 12, and 18. (Compl. ¶172).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the Accused Products when used with a smartphone and remote servers. The accused functionality includes the watch's "Wellness Application/Citizen YouQ app software," which allegedly "detects and notifies the user of heart rate changes and problems," in conjunction with the smartphone performing speech processing on speech captured by the watch. (Compl. ¶183).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Citizen CZ Smartwatch Sport Touchscreen, Citizen CZ Smartwatch Casual Touchscreen, and Citizen CZ Smartwatch Hybrid (collectively, the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are smartwatches that include features for health and wellness monitoring. (Compl. ¶17). An image from Defendant's website shows the three accused product lines and lists their respective sensors, such as accelerometer and heart rate. (Compl. p. 5).
- Alleged technical functionalities include an accelerometer to sense movement, a heart rate sensor, a processor to calculate calories burned, a user input device (such as a touchscreen or buttons) for selecting an exercise, and wireless transceivers (such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi) to transmit data to a remote device, such as a mobile telephone. (Compl. ¶17, ¶60, ¶87, ¶112).
- The complaint also alleges the devices execute speech commands from the user and can identify the user's activity. (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’796 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system, comprising: one or more sensors to detect movement of a mobile object; | The Accused Products include one or more sensors, such as an accelerometer, to detect the movement of the user wearing the smartwatch. | ¶60 | col. 1:57-58 |
| and a processor coupled to the one or more sensors and a wireless transceiver to classify sequences of movements of the mobile object into groups of similar postures represented by a model... | The Accused Products contain a processor and a wireless transceiver that allegedly classify sequences of movements into activities like running, walking, or biking. | ¶60 | col. 1:59-65 |
| and to apply the model to identify an activity of the mobile object, | The system allegedly applies a model to identify the user's activity based on the detected movements. | ¶60 | col. 1:65-67 |
| wherein the processor identifies each elemental motion of a sequence of elemental motions of the mobile object, and identifies the activity...by matching the sequence...with one or more stored sequences... | The complaint alleges the processor identifies and matches sequences of motion with stored sequences that correspond with a particular activity (e.g., running, walking). | ¶60 | col. 71:40-52 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of "classify sequences of movements... into groups of similar postures represented by a model." The analysis may focus on whether the Accused Products' method of activity detection (e.g., running, walking) meets the specific modeling and classification steps required by the claim, or if it uses a fundamentally different technical approach.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Product performs a "matching" of an identified "sequence of elemental motions" with "stored sequences," as opposed to using a more general algorithm for activity recognition? The complaint's allegations on this point are narrative and lack specific technical detail. (Compl. ¶60).
’520 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A wearable monitoring apparatus, comprising: a housing adapted to be worn by a person on a wrist of the person; | The Accused Products are smartwatches with a housing designed to be worn on a user's wrist. | ¶87 | col. 16:20-22 |
| an accelerometer disposed in the housing; a radio frequency transceiver disposed in the housing; and a processor disposed in the housing, | The Accused Products are alleged to contain an accelerometer, a wireless transceiver, and a processor within the watch housing. | ¶87 | col. 2:58-67 |
| wherein the processor analyzes signals from the accelerometer to determine whether the signals are indicative of a predefined exercise of the person, | The processor allegedly uses accelerometer data to identify that a user is engaged in a predefined exercise. | ¶87 | col. 30:8-11 |
| and wherein the processor computes calories burned by the person based on the signals from the accelerometer and the predefined exercise... | The processor is alleged to calculate the calories burned by the user based on the identified predefined exercise and the motion data from the accelerometer. | ¶87 | col. 30:11-14 |
| and wherein the processor transmits the calories burned to a remote device via the radio frequency transceiver. | The processor is alleged to transmit the calculated calorie data to a remote device (e.g., a smartphone) via a wireless transceiver. | ¶87 | col. 30:15-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of "predefined exercise." It raises the question of whether selecting a general activity type from a menu in a commercial smartwatch constitutes a "predefined exercise" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: What is the technical mechanism by which the processor "computes calories burned... based on... the predefined exercise"? The complaint does not specify how the identification of the exercise technically informs the calorie calculation, which may be a point of factual dispute. (Compl. ¶87).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’796 Patent
- The Term: "model"
- Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the asserted claim, which requires classifying movements using a "model." The term's construction will be critical to determining if the Accused Products' activity recognition algorithms fall within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could distinguish between a specific, trained analytical framework and a more general algorithm.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not limit the "model" to a specific type, referring generally to "a model" used to "classify sequences of movements." (’796 Patent, col. 72:35-40). The specification discusses a variety of models, including Hidden Markov Models (HMM), dynamic time warping, neural networks, and Bayesian networks, which could suggest the term is not limited to any single embodiment. (’796 Patent, col. 18:5-13, col. 20:4-7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly explains the model in the context of classifying "postures," which could suggest the model must be posture-based. (’796 Patent, Abstract, col. 1:62-65). The abstract specifies "groups of similar postures each represented by a model," potentially limiting the model to one that represents postures.
For the ’520 Patent
- The Term: "predefined exercise"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires the processor to both identify a "predefined exercise" and use that identification as a basis for computing calories burned. The meaning of "predefined" is central to infringement. The question for the court may be whether an exercise selected by a user from a list of generic activity types on a smartwatch qualifies as "predefined" in the sense required by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions "normal usage of exercise equipment in accordance with doctor recommendations," suggesting an exercise could be predefined by a third party. (’520 Patent, col. 18:27-29). The claims do not specify who must predefine the exercise or when, which could support a broader reading that includes user selection at the time of the activity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's focus on structured monitoring for health and wellness suggests "predefined" may imply a more formal, pre-set regimen rather than an ad-hoc selection of an activity like "running." (Compl. ¶18). The patent does not appear to explicitly define the term, leaving its scope open to interpretation based on the overall context of the invention as a system for remote health monitoring.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant’s advertising, promotional materials, and instructions that allegedly guide end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶61, ¶88). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Products have special features designed for infringing use with no substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶62, ¶89).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action." (Compl. ¶64, ¶91). It also alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others." (Compl. ¶65, ¶92).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical specificity: do the accused smartwatches, which perform general activity classification and calorie estimation, practice the specific, multi-step methods claimed in the patents? This will likely involve a factual dispute over whether the devices use a "model" to "classify sequences of... postures" (’796 patent family) and whether their calorie algorithms are technically "based on... the predefined exercise" (’520 patent family) in the manner required by the claims.
- Another key question will be one of system scope: for the patents claiming a multi-component system (’336 and ’704 patents), can the Plaintiff prove that the combination of Defendant's smartwatch, a third-party smartphone, and a third-party remote server meets every limitation of the claimed "system"? This may raise questions about divided infringement and whether the Defendant is liable for the operation of components it does not make or control.
- A final question will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court construe key terms like "model," "classify," and "predefined exercise"? The outcome of claim construction will likely be dispositive, as a narrow interpretation may place the generalized functionality of the accused commercial smartwatches outside the scope of the claims.