Wyoming IP Holdings LLC v. Zepp Health Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wyoming Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Zepp Health Corporation (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00650, E.D. Tex., 08/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant, Zepp Health Corporation, is a foreign entity not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Zepp app, featuring the AI-powered Zepp Coach, and associated Amazfit wearable devices infringe a patent related to systems for providing personalized performance instructions.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of wearable electronics and AI-driven digital coaching, a market focused on providing users with automated, data-driven feedback to improve physical skills and fitness.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent was examined and allowed by the USPTO after consideration of 261 U.S. patents, 82 published applications, and two non-patent literature articles. The complaint's prayer for relief contains a potential typographical error, requesting an injunction against infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,617,888, while the body of the complaint, including the infringement count, exclusively asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,565,888.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,565,888 - Instruction Production

Issued February 18, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of seeking instruction from a human coach (e.g., a golf professional) as potentially "time consuming, expensive, and hav[ing] other negative aspects" (’888 Patent, col. 2:55-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system designed to automate this coaching process. It works by making "an identification of a difference between an actual action of a user" (e.g., an amateur's golf swing) and a "standard action for the user" (e.g., a professional's swing) ('888 Patent, Abstract). Based on this identified difference, the system produces a corrective instruction for the user ('888 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system is described as being composed of distinct functional modules, including a "difference component," an "instruction component," and an "output component" ('888 Patent, col. 4:20-31).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide automated, data-driven, and personalized feedback for skill acquisition, moving beyond simple activity tracking to offer specific, corrective guidance.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 5 and 17, along with dependent claims 9, 10, and 11 (Compl. ¶25).
• Independent Claim 5 recites a system with three main elements:
  • A "score component" that assigns a score to a user's action based on its "physical range of motion."
  • A "selection component" that selects a "training plan" corresponding to that score.
  • An "output component" that presents the selected training plan to the user.
• Independent Claim 17 recites a system with five main elements:
  • A "score component" that assigns a score to a user's action based on its "speed."
  • A "selection component" that selects a "first training plan" from a "training plan set" that corresponds to the score.
  • An "output component" that presents the selected training plan.
  • A "reception component" to receive a user's desire to make the selected plan a "current training plan."
  • An "appointment component" to appoint the selected plan as the current plan.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as "at least a Zepp app, that comprises a feature of Zepp Coach, an AI-powered software, that acts as a digital fitness coach and works along with Amazfit smartwatches and wearable devices to create personalized training programs" (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as a combination of a software application (Zepp app with Zepp Coach) and hardware (Amazfit smartwatches) that function together (Compl. ¶20). The core accused functionality is the system's ability to operate as an "AI-powered" "digital fitness coach" that generates "personalized training programs" for users (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a claim chart comparing the asserted claims of the '888 Patent to the Accused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶25, ¶30). However, Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint. The narrative infringement theory alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities "practice the technology claimed by the '888 Patent" by creating personalized training programs, thereby satisfying the elements of at least claims 5, 9, 10, 11, and 17 (Compl. ¶20, ¶30).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the integrated, AI-driven functionality of the "Zepp Coach" can be mapped onto the discrete, modular system components recited in the claims (e.g., "score component", "selection component", "appointment component"). The defense may argue that an AI model that holistically generates a recommendation does not perform the separate functions of "scoring," "selecting," and "appointing" as claimed.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 17 requires the "selection component" to select a plan "from a training plan set comprising a first training plan and a second training plan." A key factual question will be whether the Zepp Coach software selects a plan from a pre-defined, discrete set of plans, or if it dynamically generates a new, unique plan for each user based on AI-driven parameters. The latter could present a challenge to proving literal infringement of this claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "score component" (Claims 5, 17)

• Context and Importance: Infringement of the asserted independent claims hinges on whether the analytical process of the accused Zepp Coach software constitutes the claimed "score component". Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if a modern, AI-based assessment is equivalent to the more explicitly defined "scoring" function in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes scoring in various contexts, from capturing "numerical representations of various types of motion" (col. 5:27-28) to using sensors to "determine punch strength, punch form" in a boxing match, which can be combined with "subjective judging to produce a score" (col. 5:48-6:3). This suggests the term could encompass a wide range of qualitative and quantitative assessments.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves link the score to specific physical metrics: "physical range of motion" (Claim 5) and "speed" (Claim 17). Specific embodiments also focus on direct comparisons, such as a user's Taekwondo moves against examples from Judo to find a "lesser difference" (col. 5:19-24), which may support an interpretation requiring a specific, comparative scoring process rather than a general AI analysis.

The Term: "selection component configured to select a training plan" (Claims 5, 17)

• Context and Importance: The definition of "select" is critical for determining whether a system that dynamically generates guidance infringes. If "select" is construed to mean choosing from a pre-existing list, it could create a non-infringement defense for products that generate plans on the fly.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "selection component" as being able to "selects the instruction 160 from among at least a first instruction and a second instruction" (col. 7:20-23), which could be argued to cover an AI's process of choosing certain parameters or outputs over others when generating a plan.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 17 states the component "selects the selected training plan from a training plan set comprising a first training plan and a second training plan." This language strongly implies an act of choosing one item from a pre-defined, finite set, rather than creating a new one. The patent further explains that a "selection component" can choose between two different swing types (rotational vs. linear) as the standard action, reinforcing the idea of choosing between discrete options ('888 Patent, col. 16:7-10).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that the Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the products in a manner that infringes the '888 Patent (Compl. ¶28).
• Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness is alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the Defendant "has knowledge of its infringement... at least as of the service of the present complaint" and that its continued infringement is active, knowing, and intentional (Compl. ¶23, ¶29). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the modular, function-specific terms of the claims, such as "score component" and "selection component", be construed to read on the integrated, AI-driven analytical process of the accused Zepp Coach software? Or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed architecture and the accused technology?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Zepp Coach software "select" a training plan from a pre-existing "training plan set" as explicitly required by Claim 17, or does it dynamically generate a new plan for each user? The factual answer to this question may be dispositive for the infringement analysis of a key asserted claim.