BT Wearables LLC v. Fossil Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: BT Wearables LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Fossil Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00381, E.D. Tex., 04/10/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains established and regular places of business in the District, including multiple retail locations, and has committed acts of infringement within the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartwatch products and associated software infringe five U.S. patents related to wearable monitoring systems for tracking physical activity, identifying exercises, and processing biometric data.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to the field of wearable health and fitness monitoring, a significant market segment for consumer electronics that involves tracking user movement and vital signs to provide health-related feedback.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,204,796 - "Personal Emergency Response (PER) System," issued December 18, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent family describes challenges in providing continuous, non-intrusive health and general care for a growing elderly and disabled population, noting that traditional home care is often sporadic and lacks facilities for constant monitoring (U.S. Patent No. 10,362,940, col. 1:19-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system with sensors to detect a person's movements. A processor then analyzes these movements by classifying them into sequences of "postures" which are represented by a "model." By applying the model, the system can identify the specific activity being performed by the person (’940 Patent, col. 1:45-51).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to move beyond simple motion detection (e.g., pedometers) to a more sophisticated, model-based classification of distinct user activities, enabling more detailed and context-aware health monitoring.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
• Based on the complaint's description, claim 1 requires:
  • A system with one or more sensors to detect the motion of a mobile object.
  • A processor and a wireless transceiver coupled to the sensor(s).
  • The processor classifies sequences of movements into groups of similar postures based on a model.
  • The processor then uses the model to identify the activity of the mobile object.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,775,520 - "Wearable Personal Monitoring System," issued October 3, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’796 Patent, the technology addresses the need for improved, continuous monitoring of individuals, particularly for health and fitness purposes, beyond what was available at the time of the invention ('940 Patent, col. 1:19-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a wrist-worn monitoring device that uses an accelerometer to generate motion signals. A processor analyzes these signals to determine if they correspond to a "pre-determined exercise." If a match is found, the device calculates the calories burned by the user and transmits this specific data to a remote device (Compl. ¶38). This solution focuses on linking calorie calculation to the identification of a specific exercise type, rather than just general motion.
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide more accurate caloric expenditure estimates by tying the calculation to a specific, identified exercise, which suggests a more granular approach than generic activity tracking.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
• Based on the complaint's description, claim 1 requires:
  • A monitoring apparatus with a housing worn on the wrist.
  • An accelerometer, processor, and wireless transceiver within the housing.
  • The processor analyzes signals from the accelerometer to determine whether the signals indicate a pre-determined exercise.
  • The processor calculates the calories burned by the user.
  • The processor transmits the calorie data to a remote device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,362,940 - "Personal Emergency Response (PER) System," issued July 30, 2019

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a monitoring apparatus worn on the wrist that includes a processor, accelerometer, and a user input device. The user input is adapted to select a predefined exercise, and the processor then computes activity data based on signals from the accelerometer, providing an improved wrist device for tracking activity related to a specific exercise (Compl. ¶¶55, 56).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Fossil smartwatches of infringement based on their wristwatch housing, accelerometer, processor, and user input device (touchscreen and/or buttons) that enables a user to choose a pre-defined exercise (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 10,729,336 - "Smart Watch," issued August 4, 2020

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a wrist-watch system for tracking a user's vital signs and movements. The system includes a processor, transceiver, accelerometer, and heart monitoring sensors, and is capable of wirelessly coupling to a telephone with a positioning system. This configuration allows for off-loading a portion of speech-processing from the watch to the telephone or a remote server (Compl. ¶72).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶75).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Fossil smartwatches that monitor body parameters and include a wrist-watch housing, processor, transceiver, accelerometer, and heart monitoring sensors. Infringement is further alleged based on the products' ability to wirelessly couple to a telephone with a positioning system and offload speech processing to the telephone or a remote server (Compl. ¶76).

U.S. Patent No. 11,051,704 - "Smart Watch," issued July 6, 2021

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a wrist-watch that tracks vital signs using a heart monitoring sensor and includes a processor capable of detecting a heart problem. The system also includes a telephone with a positioning system that is capable of performing speech processing on speech captured by the wrist-watch and is coupled to a remote server (Compl. ¶89).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶92).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Fossil smartwatches that include a wrist-watch housing, processor, transceiver, accelerometer, and heart monitoring sensors. Infringement is further alleged based on the processor's capability of detecting a heart problem in conjunction with app software, and the ability to wirelessly pair with a smartphone for speech processing and connection to remote cloud servers (Compl. ¶93).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Fossil smartwatches, including but not limited to the Fossil Gen 6, Gen 6 Hybrid, and Gen 5 LTE models, and their associated applications such as the Fossil Smartwatches App (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products include functionality to calculate calories burned, transmit data to a remote device, select an exercise via a user input device, an accelerometer, a heart rate sensor, execute speech commands, couple to a mobile telephone, and identify user activity (Compl. ¶17). A product comparison chart provided in the complaint shows that various models feature a heart rate and fitness tracker, Alexa for voice commands, and a microphone. (Compl. p. 4).
• The complaint does not provide specific allegations regarding the products' market positioning beyond their general availability for sale (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits for each asserted patent but does not include them in the filing. The infringement allegations are therefore summarized in prose based on the narrative provided in the complaint for each count.

'796 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products directly infringe by providing a system with sensors, a processor, and a wireless transceiver (Compl. ¶25). This system allegedly detects user movements to identify various activities such as running, walking, biking, and rowing. The infringement theory appears to be that the products' fitness tracking functionality meets the claim limitations of classifying sequences of movements into groups of similar postures represented by a model, and then applying that model to identify a specific activity (Compl. ¶25).
• Identified Points of Contention: A central question may be whether the activity detection algorithms in the Accused Products meet the specific claim limitations of "classify[ing] sequences of movements . . . into groups of similar postures represented by a model" and "apply[ing] the model to identify an activity" ('940 Patent, col. 1:47-51). The analysis will likely focus on the technical operation of Fossil's software and whether it performs these specific modeling and classification steps, as opposed to more generalized activity recognition.

'520 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products directly infringe by providing a wrist-worn apparatus with an accelerometer, transceiver, and processor (Compl. ¶42). The infringement theory is that the processor uses the accelerometer data to "identify a predefined exercise conducted by the user" and then uses that information to "calculate the calories burned by the user" before transmitting the data (Compl. ¶42).
• Identified Points of Contention: The dispute may turn on the meaning of "identify a predefined exercise" and whether the Accused Products perform this step as a prerequisite to calculating calories. The analysis raises the question of whether the products' calorie calculation is specifically dependent on first identifying a particular type of exercise selected by the user, or if it is based on a more general analysis of motion and heart rate data, regardless of exercise type.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "model"

• Context and Importance: (from the '796 Patent claim 1 allegations) The infringement allegation for the '796 Patent hinges on the Accused Products using a "model" to classify postures and identify activity. The definition of this term will be critical to determining the scope of the claim and whether the algorithms in a commercial smartwatch fall within it. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could distinguish between a specific, patented method and the general concept of algorithmic activity tracking.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention in the related '940 Patent states the processor is adapted "to apply the models to identify an activity of the object," without limiting the model to a specific type of algorithm ('940 Patent, col. 1:49-51). This could support a construction covering any predictive or classificatory algorithm.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the patent family explicitly lists specific, complex algorithms such as a "Hidden Markov Model (HMM) recognizer, a dynamic time warp (DTW) recognizer, a neural network, a fuzzy logic engine," and others as examples of the "digital monitoring agent" that performs the analysis ('940 Patent, col. 2:35-38). This language may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to these or similar sophisticated modeling techniques.

The Term: "computes activity data for the selected predefined exercise"

• Context and Importance: (from the '940 Patent claim 1, which clarifies the technology of the ’520 patent) The infringement theories for the '520 and '940 patents depend on the device first allowing a user to select a "predefined exercise" and then computing data for that specific exercise. The construction of this phrase will determine whether the claim requires a direct causal link between the exercise selection and the subsequent data computation, or if a more general activity tracking that occurs after a user selects a workout mode is sufficient.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 of the '940 patent recites that the processor "computes activity data for the selected predefined exercise based on signals from the accelerometer," which could be read broadly to cover any activity data computed after an exercise is selected ('940 Patent, col. 77:10-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses monitoring "for normal usage of exercise equipment in accordance with doctor recommendations" and receiving data from "mesh network enabled exercise equipment 8G" ('940 Patent, col. 9:60-61, col. 10:57-58). This context may support an argument that the claims are directed at systems that compute data tailored to the specific parameters of the selected equipment or exercise, not just general motion.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The allegations state that Defendant induced end-users to infringe by providing the Accused Products and "distributing instructions that guide users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶¶26, 43, 60, 77, 94).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willfulness based on two theories. First, it alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patents at least as of the filing of the complaint, supporting a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶29, 46, 63, 80, 97). Second, it alleges pre-suit willful blindness, based on an asserted "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶¶30, 47, 64, 81, 98).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can technical terms from the patents, such as a system that classifies movement based on "postures represented by a model," be construed broadly enough to read on the general-purpose fitness and activity tracking algorithms implemented in commercial smartwatches?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the Accused Products perform the specific, sequential steps recited in the claims, such as identifying a "pre-determined exercise" before and as a basis for calculating caloric expenditure, as opposed to performing more generalized biometric analysis?
• A central dispute may concern the level of specificity: the case will likely explore whether the accused smartwatch features represent a concrete embodiment of the specific, model-based analytical methods described in the patents or if they represent merely the general, abstract idea of tracking activity with a wearable device, a distinction the complaint attempts to preemptively address (Compl. ¶¶21, 38, 55, 72, 89).