Mobile Health Innovative Solutions LLC v. Zepp Health Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mobile Health Innovative Solutions, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Zepp Health Corporation (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00651, E.D. Tex., 08/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Amazfit smartwatches and associated Zepp Aura software infringe a patent related to methods for establishing a user's current stress or load level by analyzing multiple categories of biometric data.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of wearable health-monitoring technology, which uses sensors and software to track and analyze personal biometric and activity data.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,468,984, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination requested on June 25, 2024. The reexamination concluded with a certificate confirming the patentability of all asserted claims (1, 5, 11, and 12), which may strengthen the patent's presumption of validity in this 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

Issued October 11, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art methods for assessing user stress as being unreliable, inconvenient, or both. These methods either relied on too few data points (e.g., a single sensor or a subjective questionnaire) or required users to wear special, cumbersome devices, which restricted comfort and incurred extra cost (’984 Patent, col. 2:4-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a general-purpose "mobile terminal" (e.g., a smartphone) to solve this problem. It describes a software application that ascertains a "multiplicity of biometric data" by combining information from two distinct sources: (1) signal data from sensors integrated into the device (like accelerometers or gyroscopes) and (2) "user data" extracted from the user's interaction with other available software applications on the device (such as telephony, SMS, or web browsing) (’984 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:29-44). This combined data is then processed, often by a network of artificial neural networks, to determine a more holistic and reliable "current load level" for the user.
• Technical Importance: This approach was significant because it leveraged the existing, ubiquitous hardware and software ecosystem of a smartphone to create a comprehensive stress profile, aiming to eliminate the need for specialized, single-function monitoring devices and high-effort user input (’984 Patent, col. 2:41-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a device) and 12 (a method).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a device for calculating a user's load level, the key elements of which include:
  • A "mobile end unit" having an integrated sensor and a "plurality of available applications."
  • A "further application" that calculates biometric data from both the sensor and from "user data of said plurality of available applications."
  • An "evaluation unit" that determines the load level by applying a method using a "network of artificial neural networks that includes a plurality of artificial neural networks that interact with each other."
  • The use of processors and a graphics card to perform calculations in parallel.
  • A display of a "consolidated load level" derived from multiple "category-specific load levels."
• Independent Claim 12 recites a corresponding method with parallel steps, including:
  • Calculating biometric data using a "further application" that records data from both an integrated sensor and from a "plurality of applications."
  • Dividing the biometric data into categories and ascertaining "category-specific load levels."
  • Determining the current load level using a "network of artificial neural networks" comprising interacting sub-networks, calculated in parallel by processors.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 5 and 11 and states that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶11, 25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Amazfit smartwatches such as the Amazfit GTR 4 (Watch), which provides an AI-powered solution, Zepp Aura" (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products provide an "AI-powered solution" that "measures the readiness and relaxation level ('current load level') of users and helps them understand their sleeping patterns" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint refers to these as "exemplary products" but does not provide further technical detail on their operation or specific market positioning (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit (Exhibit B) that was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶25, 31). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis in table format is not possible. The complaint’s narrative infringement theory alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities practice the patented technology by using an "AI-powered solution" to measure a user's "readiness and relaxation level ('current load level')" (Compl. ¶20). The plaintiff alleges that these products satisfy all elements of claims 1, 5, 11, and 12 of the ’984 Patent and that Defendant’s product literature and website materials induce infringement by instructing users on how to use the products in the claimed manner (Compl. ¶28, 30).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "mobile end unit" as used in the patent can be construed to read on the accused smartwatches. The patent's specification repeatedly uses "smartphone," "tablet computer," and "PDA" as its primary examples, raising the question of whether the claim scope is limited to such devices (’984 Patent, col. 3:1-3; col. 2:26-28).
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused products meet the claim limitation requiring the use of data from a "plurality of available applications" in addition to sensor data. A key factual dispute may be whether the accused "Zepp Aura" solution analyzes data from distinct software applications (e.g., messaging, calls), as described in the patent (’984 Patent, col. 2:63-65), or if it primarily relies on data from integrated sensors for activity and sleep tracking.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges an "AI-powered solution," but the claims require a specific "network of artificial neural networks that includes a plurality of artificial neural networks that interact with each other" (’984 Patent, cl. 1, 12). It will be a matter of discovery to determine if the accused products' technical architecture meets this specific, potentially complex structural limitation or employs a different form of machine learning.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"mobile end unit"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to determining whether the accused smartwatches fall within the scope of the claims, as the patent specification’s examples focus on smartphones and tablets (’984 Patent, col. 3:1-3).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general and not explicitly defined. Plaintiff may argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any portable electronic device with the recited capabilities.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently uses "smartphone" as its primary example and describes functionality tied to telephony and SMS applications, which may suggest to a court that the invention is anchored in the context of a communications-centric device rather than a health-focused wearable (’984 Patent, col. 2:26-32, col. 4:51-54).

"user data of said plurality of available applications used by the user"

• Context and Importance: This term is a key point of novelty, distinguishing the invention from systems that rely only on sensor data. Infringement will likely depend on whether the accused products are shown to analyze this specific type of data.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term covers data from any user interaction with any application on the device, including system-level applications or health-tracking apps.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of such applications, including "telephony, SMS, MMS, chat applications and/or browser applications" (’984 Patent, col. 2:63-65). Defendant may argue that this language limits the scope to data from communication and browsing applications, which may not be what the accused smartwatch software analyzes.

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

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegation of an "AI-powered solution" is a general marketing phrase, whereas the claim language recites a specific technical architecture (Compl. ¶20). Proving infringement requires meeting this detailed limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that this describes any sufficiently complex, multi-stage machine learning model where different components or layers process data and influence each other's outputs.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes specific advanced structures like a "Deep Belief Network" or a "convolutional deep belief network" as embodiments, where different neural networks operate on hierarchical levels (’984 Patent, col. 6:38-51). A court could find that this limits the claim to these more complex, multi-network architectures.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ’984 Patent (Compl. ¶28).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶23, 27). It further alleges that Defendant continues to infringe despite this knowledge, which forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶28, 29).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mobile end unit", exemplified in the patent by smartphones and tablets, be construed to cover the accused smartwatches? The answer will likely dictate whether the accused products are subject to the patent's claims at all.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of data sourcing: will discovery reveal that the accused "Zepp Aura" system infringes by analyzing both sensor data and "user data of...available applications" as required by the claims, or will it show a technical mismatch where the system relies almost exclusively on sensor data for its "load level" calculations?
• A second key evidentiary question will concern technical architecture: does the accused "AI-powered solution" implement the specific, multi-part "network of artificial neural networks that interact with each other" as claimed, or is there a fundamental difference in the complexity and structure of the machine learning model used?