DCT
6:23-cv-00478
Cheetah Omni, LLC v. Whoop, Inc.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cheetah Omni, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Whoop, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C.; McAfee & Taft A Professional Corporation
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00478, W.D. Tex., 06/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Whoop, Inc. has a regular place of business in the District, including a "lab" in Austin for "in-the-field research," and has committed acts of infringement in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wearable health and fitness monitoring systems, including the Whoop 4.0, infringe a patent related to a diagnostic system that uses optical sensors, a software application, and a remote host.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to wearable electronic devices that use optical sensors to monitor physiological data, which is then processed and displayed to the user via a software application.
- Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,055,868 Priority Date |
| 2015-06-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,055,868 Issued |
| 2021-01-01 | Whoop 4.0 Accused Product Introduced (approximate date) |
| 2023-06-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,055,868, System and Method for Voice Control of Medical Devices, issued June 16, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of conventional medical procedures, particularly those involving scopes, requiring significant manual dexterity from a medical professional who must simultaneously hold the device, guide it, and manipulate its controls, which can result in strain (ʼ868 Patent, col. 9:4-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that can be controlled through voice commands to reduce the need for manual manipulation (ʼ868 Patent, col. 8:51-54). The system comprises a light source that directs a beam onto a user's body to perform a measurement, a software application on a "control system" (e.g., a mobile device) to process the resulting physiological data, and a remote "host" to store and display the user's status (ʼ868 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-34). This architecture integrates optical sensing with a networked system that can be controlled remotely or via voice.
- Technical Importance: The patent describes combining wearable optical diagnostic technology with remote data hosting and voice-activated control, aiming to reduce the physical burden on medical professionals and potentially enable remote system operation (ʼ868 Patent, col. 9:30-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 7 as "exemplary" (Compl. ¶24).
- Independent Claim 7 requires:
- A light source with one or more semiconductor diodes generating a light beam.
- A lens system to direct the light beam onto a user's body for a measurement.
- A software application that generates physiological data from the measurement.
- The software application operating on a control system that has a touch-screen, circuitry for obtaining position information, a wireless transceiver, and is capable of receiving voice and manual input.
- A host that receives the wireless data, processes it with control logic to generate a user status, stores the status in memory, and provides an output to a remote display.
- The complaint states that Whoop infringes "one or more claims" of the patent, including claim 7, reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶32).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Whoop's "wearable technology systems," with the "Whoop 4.0" device and its accompanying "Whoop App" and cloud database being specifically identified (Compl. ¶9, ¶15, ¶18-19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Whoop 4.0 is a wearable device that includes five LED sensors and four photodiodes to take diagnostic measurements of a user's heart rate, oxygen levels, and skin temperature (Compl. ¶16). This image of the back of a Whoop 4.0 device shows its sensor array (Compl. ¶17). Data measured by the device is periodically uploaded to a "cloud database" maintained by Whoop (Compl. ¶18). This data is then accessed, retrieved, and displayed to the user via the Whoop App running on a mobile device, which acts as a control system for the app (Compl. ¶19-20). These screenshots from the complaint show the Whoop App displaying physiological data such as Heart Rate Variability and Strain (Compl. ¶22). The user's mobile device is alleged to include a touch-screen and a wireless transceiver (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’868 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a light source comprising: one or more semiconductor diodes generating an input light beam; and a lens system configured to receive at least a portion of the input light beam and to communicate at least the portion of the input light beam onto a part of a user's body comprising blood... | The Whoop 4.0 device is alleged to be a light source containing five LED sensors (semiconductor diodes) that, along with photodiodes, are placed on a user's skin to take diagnostic measurements, such as heart rate and oxygen levels. The complaint includes a photo of these sensors on the back of the device. | ¶16, ¶17, ¶27-28 | col. 2:35-41 |
| a software application capable of generating data based at least in part on the measurement on the user, wherein the data represents at least in part physiological information associated with the user; | The Whoop system includes a software application that allegedly generates data (e.g., Heart Rate Variability, Strain) based on the measurements taken by the wearable device, representing physiological information. | ¶29 | col. 2:13-17 |
| the software application capable of operating on a control system adapted to receive, store and process... the control system having a touch-screen, circuitry for obtaining position information from a location sensor, and a wireless transceiver... wherein the control system is further capable of receiving voice input signals... | The Whoop App operates on a user's mobile device, which is alleged to be the "control system." This mobile device has a touch-screen and a wireless transceiver. The complaint alleges this control system is capable of receiving voice input signals and manually entered input signals. The complaint includes app screenshots showing the data displayed on the mobile device. | ¶21, ¶22, ¶30 | col. 2:17-25 |
| a host comprising: a digital file for receiving and storing... wireless data; control logic at the host to process... the wireless data to generate a status of the user; a memory storage device for recording the status; and an output for communicating... the status... to one or more display output devices... located remotely | Whoop allegedly utilizes a "host," identified as a "cloud database," which receives and stores wireless data from the wearable device. This host is alleged to have control logic to process the data to generate a user's status (e.g., "Strain" or "Recovery" scores) and a memory for recording it. This information is then communicated to the Whoop App on the user's mobile device, which serves as a remote display output device. | ¶18, ¶19, ¶31 | col. 2:25-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent is titled "System and Method for Voice Control of Medical Devices" and its specification repeatedly describes its use by a "medical professional" in a clinical context (e.g., '868 Patent, col. 5:46-50, col. 9:4-14). A central question may be whether the term "diagnostic system" and its components, like the "control system," can be construed to cover a consumer-grade fitness product used by a layperson, as opposed to a clinical tool operated by a medical professional.
- Technical Questions: Claim 7 requires the "control system" to be "capable of receiving voice input signals." The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that this limitation is met (Compl. ¶30) but provides no specific facts showing that the Whoop App itself has any voice-command functionality. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the native voice capabilities of the mobile device's operating system (e.g., Siri, Google Assistant) are sufficient to meet this limitation, or if the claim requires the "software application" itself to be designed to process such inputs.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "control system"
Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical for determining if the patent's scope covers the accused system. The patent's specification frames the invention in a medical context, but the claim language is more general. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could either limit the patent to the clinical environment described in the embodiments or allow it to cover consumer electronics.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the control system by its components (touch-screen, wireless transceiver, etc.) and capabilities, without expressly limiting it to use by a medical professional ('868 Patent, col. 24:50-60). The term is not explicitly defined in a limiting way in the specification.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and detailed description consistently refer to "medical devices," "medical professionals," and clinical procedures like surgery (ʼ868 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 5:46-50; col. 9:4-14). Figures 1 and 2 depict what appears to be a clinical or surgical environment. This context may be used to argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the "control system" to be part of a system for professional medical use.
The Term: "the control system is further capable of receiving voice input signals"
Context and Importance: The complaint's factual support for this element is sparse. The construction of this phrase will determine the type of evidence Plaintiff must produce. Specifically, it raises the question of whether a general capability of the underlying hardware (the smartphone) suffices, or if a specific feature of the accused software is required.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the "control system" is capable, which could be interpreted to mean the combination of the mobile device hardware and the software application. Since modern smartphones are inherently capable of receiving voice input, this could support a finding of infringement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's summary describes "voice recognition software to process at least a portion of the voice input signals" as part of the system's "control logic" ('868 Patent, col. 2:60-63). Figure 5 shows a flowchart where "voice recognition means" are used to "identify instruction" and "generate command signal" ('868 Patent, Fig. 5, steps 604-610). This may suggest that the claimed system requires integrated, functional voice command processing, not just the passive ability of the hardware to detect sound.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Whoop induces infringement by encouraging its customers and retailers to use the infringing systems and contributorily infringes by selling the products knowing they are used to infringe (Compl. ¶34-35). The allegations are based on the act of selling the products with knowledge of the patent.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based "upon information and belief" of pre-suit knowledge of the '868 patent, and in the alternative, based on knowledge gained from the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claims for a "diagnostic system" and "control system," which are described in the patent's specification primarily in the context of professional "medical devices," be construed broadly enough to read on a direct-to-consumer health and fitness wearable like the Whoop 4.0 system?
- A key evidentiary and legal question will be one of functional scope: does the claim limitation requiring the "control system" to be "capable of receiving voice input signals" require the accused software application to have its own integrated voice-command functionality, or is the general voice-reception capability of the underlying smartphone hardware sufficient to meet this element? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations on this point suggests it will be a significant area of dispute.