Mobile Health Innovative Solutions LLC v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mobile Health Innovative Solutions, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00437, E.D. Tex., 06/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including data centers and employee locations, and has been found subject to venue in the district in prior litigation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Pixel Watches, which incorporate a "Body Response" stress management feature, infringe a patent related to determining a user's load level by processing biometric data from mobile device sensors and application usage via a network of neural networks.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of wearable health monitoring, leveraging the sensors and computational power of common mobile devices to assess a user's physiological or psychological state without requiring specialized, single-purpose hardware.
• Key Procedural History: Shortly after this complaint was filed, the patent's assignee filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit. A reexamination certificate has been noticed for issuance, confirming the patentability of the asserted independent claims. This proactive step suggests a strategy to reinforce the patent's validity against expected challenges in litigation.

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"

• Patent Identification: 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 describes prior art methods for assessing user stress as being unreliable or inconvenient. They either relied on very few data points (e.g., only heart rate) or required burdensome user input (e.g., questionnaires), and sometimes necessitated wearing special, uncomfortable devices ('984 Patent, col. 2:4-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system using a conventional mobile device (the "mobile end unit") equipped with standard integrated sensors and user applications to gather a "multiplicity of biometric data" across several categories. A dedicated application on the device collects this diverse data—ranging from sensor signals to application usage patterns—and provides it to an evaluation unit. This unit, which can be on the device or a central server, uses a network of artificial neural networks to analyze the combined data and determine a user's current "load level." ('984 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:22-34; FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a method for passive and continuous wellness monitoring by leveraging the ubiquitous, sensor-rich mobile devices users already possess, thereby avoiding the cost and inconvenience of specialized hardware ('984 Patent, col. 3:35-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 and notes that Claim 12 is also independent (Compl. ¶19, ¶32).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A device with a mobile end unit containing at least one integrated sensor, a plurality of available applications, and an evaluation unit (on the device or a central server).
  • A "further application" on the mobile unit for calculating biometric data from sensor signals and user data from the available applications.
  • The evaluation unit divides the biometric data into a "plurality of categories" and ascertains "category-specific load levels."
  • The evaluation unit determines the user's final "current load level" by "applying a method carried out in a network of artificial neural networks that includes a plurality of artificial neural networks that interact with each other."
  • The device includes specific hardware: "a plurality of processors... designed for calculating the plurality of artificial neural networks in parallel" and "at least one graphics card with at least one graphics card processor" that supports the calculation.
  • The determined load level is displayed to the user.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Google Pixel Watches, with the Google Pixel 2 identified as an exemplary product (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused functionality is the "Body Response feature," which is alleged to calculate a "stress management score" for the user (Compl. ¶32).
• Upon being notified of the score, the user is prompted to take actions such as logging their mood or engaging in stress-reduction exercises like guided breathing (Compl. ¶32).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the underlying technology or specific data inputs used by the Body Response feature to calculate the score.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a claim chart comparing Claim 1 of the '984 Patent to the accused products is attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶37). However, this exhibit was not included with the publicly filed complaint. Therefore, a claim chart table cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory alleges that the Google Pixel Watches are the "mobile end unit" and that the "Body Response feature" is the infringing "further application" (Compl. ¶32). This feature allegedly calculates a "stress management score" (the "current load level") by collecting and processing biometric data using a method that practices the patented technology. The complaint alleges that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the exemplary Claim 1" (Compl. ¶38). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "network of artificial neural networks that includes a plurality of artificial neural networks that interact with each other" can be construed to read on the specific algorithm Google uses for its stress score. A second scope question is whether the integrated System-on-a-Chip (SoC) in a smartwatch satisfies the claim's specific hardware requirements for "a plurality of processors" calculating in parallel and "at least one graphics card with at least one graphics card processor."
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Google's "Body Response feature" collects "biometric data" from a "plurality of categories" (including from "available applications") as required by the claim, rather than from a more limited set of physiological sensors? Further, what is the evidence that Google's system first calculates "category-specific load levels" before determining the final consolidated score, as the claim language suggests?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a network of artificial neural networks that includes a plurality of artificial neural networks that interact with each other"

Context and Importance

• This term defines the core computational method. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether Google's proprietary stress-scoring algorithm can be shown to have this specific, complex, multi-network architecture.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

• The specification describes a "network of artificial neural networks" as being made up of a "plurality of neural networks that interact with one another," which could be argued to cover a wide range of interacting AI models ('984 Patent, col. 6:38-42).

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

• The specification describes specific embodiments like a "Deep Belief Network" or a "convolutional deep belief network" composed of multiple levels of interacting neural networks, such as restricted Boltzmann machines ('984 Patent, col. 21:35-49). This detailed disclosure could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such multi-level architectures.

The Term: "at least one graphics card with at least one graphics card processor"

Context and Importance

• This is a specific hardware limitation that may be difficult to map onto a compact wearable device. Its construction could be dispositive of infringement.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

• The patent states that a graphics card processor can be incorporated to "support computation" and "optimize the computation time," and can be located on either the mobile terminal or a central server ('984 Patent, col. 22:50-58). A party may argue this functional language suggests any graphics processing unit (GPU) that performs this role, such as an integrated GPU core on an SoC, meets the limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

• The term "graphics card" traditionally refers to a discrete hardware component, not an integrated processing core within an SoC. A party could argue that the plain meaning of the term requires a distinct physical card, which is not present in a smartwatch.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Google's "product literature and website materials" instruct and encourage end-users to operate the Pixel Watches in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶35).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that Google has had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" and has continued its infringing activities thereafter (Compl. ¶30, ¶36).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical proof: Can the plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence that the proprietary software and hardware architecture of the Google Pixel Watch practices the specific multi-step, multi-category data analysis method performed by the claimed "network of artificial neural networks" and its associated parallel processing and graphics hardware requirements?
• A key legal battle will be over claim construction: Can the term "at least one graphics card with at least one graphics card processor," a term rooted in traditional computing hardware, be construed to cover the integrated GPU cores within the System-on-a-Chip architecture of a modern smartwatch?
• A significant procedural factor will be the assignee-requested reexamination. The confirmation of the asserted claims by the USPTO post-filing will likely strengthen the plaintiff’s position on validity and may shift the focus of the case squarely onto the technical questions of infringement.