Mobile Health Innovative Solutions LLCS v. Polar Electro Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mobile Health Innovative Solutions, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Polar Electro, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04089, E.D.N.Y., 07/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly maintaining a regular and established business presence, including a physical office, within the Eastern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartwatches, which feature fitness testing capabilities, infringe a patent related to methods for determining a user's physiological load level by analyzing multiple categories of biometric data via a mobile device.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using sensors and application data from personal mobile devices, such as smartwatches, to infer a user's physiological state, a central feature in the competitive wearable health and fitness technology market.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. 11,468,984, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination requested on June 25, 2024. The USPTO issued a Reexamination Certificate on December 3, 2024, confirming the patentability of all claims it reviewed, including the asserted independent Claim 12. This post-grant proceeding may strengthen the patent's presumption of validity against prior art considered during the reexamination.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,468,984 - "Device, Method and Application for Establishing a Current Load Level," issued October 11, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in prior art methods for determining a user's stress level, noting they were often unreliable because they relied on very few categories of biometric data (e.g., only subjective questionnaires or only a single vital function) (ʼ984 Patent, col. 2:4-14). Furthermore, methods using dedicated hardware were costly and inconvenient for the user to wear (ʼ984 Patent, col. 2:15-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and application for a general-purpose mobile terminal (like a smartphone) that ascertains a "multiplicity of biometric data" from a user (ʼ984 Patent, col. 2:56-58). The application gathers data from two distinct sources: integrated sensors (e.g., gyroscope, accelerometer) and user data from other available applications (e.g., telephony, SMS messaging) (ʼ984 Patent, col. 3:30-34). An evaluation unit then analyzes these combined, diverse data categories to determine a "current load level," aiming for higher reliability without requiring specialized external devices (ʼ984 Patent, col. 2:46-54).
• Technical Importance: The technology leverages the existing, increasingly powerful sensing and data-gathering capabilities of ubiquitous mobile devices to perform complex physiological analysis, reducing the need for specialized, single-function monitoring hardware (ʼ984 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 12 (Compl. ¶25).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 12, a method claim, include:
  • Starting an application on a mobile end unit.
  • Calculating biometric data using the application, where the data is derived from both (a) user data from a "plurality of applications" and (b) signal data from "at least one sensor."
  • Dividing the biometric data into a "plurality of categories."
  • Evaluating the data to determine a "current load level."
  • Ascertaining "category-specific load levels" via a mean of features.
  • Determining the final current load level using a "network of artificial neural networks" that "interact with each other" and perform calculations "in parallel" with support from a "graphics card processor."
• The complaint notes that the '984 Patent also contains independent Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶12, 25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies a range of Defendant's smartwatches, including the Polar Unite, Grit X, Ignite, Pacer, and Vantage series, as the "Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶25).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused functionality is the "Polar Fitness Test," a feature that estimates a user's "aerobic fitness level while at rest" to provide a VO2 max score (Compl. ¶25). The test is alleged to determine this fitness level by analyzing "multiple health metrics, including but not limited to resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and personal details such as gender, age, height, weight, and training background" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the specific commercial importance of this feature.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused smartwatches, through their "Polar Fitness Test" functionality, practice all elements of at least Claim 12 of the '984 Patent (Compl. ¶31). The complaint incorporates by reference a claim chart exhibit that was not included with the filing; the following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

'984 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the claimed "current load level," described in the patent primarily in the context of psychophysiological stress, can be interpreted to read on the "aerobic fitness level (such as VO2 max)" calculated by the accused products (Compl. ¶25; '984 Patent, col. 2:4-8).
  • Technical Questions: Claim 12 recites a highly specific computational architecture, including a "network of artificial neural networks that interact with each other" and perform calculations "in parallel" with support from a "graphics card processor" ('984 Patent, col. 27:43-col. 28:28). The complaint makes only a conclusory allegation of infringement for these elements (Compl. ¶31). A key question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the "Polar Fitness Test" actually implements this specific, complex architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "current load level"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the output of the claimed method and is central to the infringement analysis. The viability of the plaintiff’s case may depend on this term being construed broadly enough to cover the "aerobic fitness level" and "VO2 max" estimate generated by the accused products (Compl. ¶25).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's title uses the general term "load level," and the abstract describes a method for "establishing a current load level" without explicit limitation to stress ('984 Patent, Title; Abstract). Plaintiff may argue that "load" is a general physiological term not limited by the examples in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's "Statement of Problem" and "Prior Art" sections repeatedly frame the invention as an improved way to measure "stress level" ('984 Patent, col. 1:53-60; col. 2:4-8). The detailed examples focus on indicators of psychophysiological state like sleep patterns, speech characteristics, and typing errors, not cardiovascular fitness ('984 Patent, col. 11:58-col. 16:53). This context may support a narrower construction limited to stress or strain.

• The Term: "biometric data ... divided into a plurality of categories"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the required diversity of inputs for the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused inputs—"resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and personal details" (Compl. ¶25)—qualify as the distinct "categories" envisioned by the patent, which emphasizes combining sensor data with behavioral data from separate applications like SMS and telephony ('984 Patent, col. 3:50-63).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a non-exhaustive list of categories, including "sleep, speech, motor functions, social interaction, economic data, personal data and questionnaire data" ('984 Patent, col. 4:45-49). Plaintiff may argue the accused inputs fall within several of these, such as "personal data" and "motor functions."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's inventive concept appears to hinge on combining functionally distinct types of data (e.g., physical movement from sensors and social interaction from application use) ('984 Patent, col. 3:30-49). Defendant may argue that the accused inputs, while multiple, all relate to a user's direct physiological and personal profile rather than representing the functionally separate "categories" taught by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the accused "Polar Fitness Test" feature in a manner that infringes Claim 12 (Compl. ¶28, ¶29). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the feature is specially designed for an infringing use and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶30).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of infringement obtained "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶23). This allegation appears to be limited to post-filing conduct.

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

The resolution of this dispute may depend on the court's answers to several key questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "current load level", which is described in the patent’s specification primarily in the context of monitoring psychological and physiological "stress," be construed broadly enough to encompass the "aerobic fitness level (VO2 max)" calculated by the accused smartwatches?

2. A second issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused "Polar Fitness Test" actually operates using the specific and complex computational architecture required by Claim 12, including its requirements for interacting neural networks, parallel processing, and graphics processor support? The complaint's current allegations on these technical elements are conclusory.

3. Finally, a central question will be how the patent's recent reexamination impacts the case. The fact that Claim 12 was confirmed as patentable by the USPTO may significantly strengthen its presumption of validity and narrow the scope of invalidity arguments available to the defendant.