DCT
6:24-cv-00280
CardiacSense Ltd v. Coros Wearables Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CardiacSense LTD (Israel)
- Defendant: COROS Wearables, Inc. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL ZITO CASTELLANO
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00280, W.D. Tex., 05/22/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of infringement and imported infringing products into the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of performance sports watches infringes a patent related to a personal device for measuring and analyzing a user's training activity.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable devices equipped with motion sensors to capture and process detailed data about an athlete's movements, such as in swimming, to provide performance analytics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998 Priority Date |
| 2011-07-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998 Issue Date |
| 2024-05-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,980,998 - *"Training and Instructing Support Device"*
- Issued: July 19, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for more advanced athlete monitoring systems beyond simple timers or single-function sensors. The background suggests existing devices lacked the ability to provide comprehensive, real-time feedback based on a detailed analysis of a user's specific body movements and orientation during an activity like swimming (’998 Patent, col. 1:15-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a wearable personal device that uses a combination of sensors—at least an accelerometer and a compass, with an optional gyroscope—to repeatedly measure the movement of a body part. A processor then calculates data from these measurements to characterize the body part's "location and orientation" relative to an initial state, providing a detailed record of the training activity (’998 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-14). The patent also describes this device as part of a larger potential system for instructor-led training (’998 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology enabled the capture and processing of multi-axis motion data (linear and angular acceleration) to derive specific positional and orientational information, moving beyond simple metrics to allow for a more granular analysis of athletic form and technique (’998 Patent, col. 4:20-27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 5, 10, and 12, along with several dependent claims (Compl. ¶29). The infringement analysis focuses on Claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
- A personal device for measuring a training activity of a trainee having a body part which moves and changes its location and orientation.
- A sensing unit adapted to repeatedly measure parameters associated with the movement, comprising at least an accelerometer and a compass, and optionally a gyroscope.
- Means for attaching the sensing unit to the body part.
- A processor adapted to receive the parameters from the sensing unit and calculate data indicative of the training activity, including the location and orientation of the body part for each measurement.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are a line of training devices, including the Coros Pace 2, Coros Pace 3, Coros Apex, Coros Apex Pro, Coros Apex 2, Coros Apex 2 Pro, Coros Vertix, and Coros Vertix 2 (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are wearable training watches that contain a "3D Compass, Accelerometer, ... [and] Gyroscope" (Compl. ¶19, p. 6). The devices are alleged to use these sensors to track user movements, such as detecting different swim strokes by monitoring movement and angular acceleration along three axes (Compl. ¶19, p. 6). The complaint further alleges the devices contain a processor that calculates and displays training-related data to the user (Compl. ¶19, p. 7). A marketing screenshot provided in the complaint describes the Coros Pace 2 as a "training device to be worn on the wrist of a trainee" (Compl. ¶19, p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- Claim Chart Summary: The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for representative independent claim 1, based on the complaint's element-by-element breakdown for the Coros Pace 2.
’998 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A personal device for measuring a training activity of a trainee having a body part which moves and changes its location and orientation... | The Coros Pace 2 is described as a training device worn on the wrist of a trainee to measure training activity. A product image shows the watch worn on a wrist. | ¶19 | col. 18:1-4 |
| (a) a sensing unit adapted to repeatedly measure...parameters associated with the movement...and wherein said sensing unit comprising at least accelerometer means, a compass and optionally gyroscope means... | The Coros Pace 2 is alleged to contain a 3D compass, accelerometer, and gyroscope. A screenshot from the product webpage lists these sensors. | ¶19 | col. 18:5-18 |
| (b) means for attaching the sensing unit to said body part; and | The device includes a watch band for attachment. The complaint provides a screenshot showing the "Watch Band" with specifications for "Width" and "Installation Type." | ¶19 | col. 18:19-20 |
| (c) a processor adapted to receive from the sensing unit said parameters, and to calculate based thereon, data indicative of said training activity, said data including at least the location and orientation of said body part for each of the measurements. | The device has a processor that calculates and displays user data. A marketing graphic touts a "more powerful processor," and a device screenshot shows the display of "Reps" and "Sets" data. | ¶19 | col. 18:21-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1(b) recites "means for attaching the sensing unit to said body part." As this is in means-plus-function format, its scope is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification and their equivalents. A central question will be whether the accused watch bands are structurally equivalent to the disclosed "elastic and/or adjustable band," "clamp," or "Velcro patch" (’998 Patent, col. 8:37-49).
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question may arise regarding claim 1(c). The claim requires the processor to calculate data that includes "the location and orientation of said body part for each of the measurements." The complaint shows the accused device calculating "reps" (Compl. ¶19, p. 6), but does not explicitly show that it calculates the specific "location and orientation" data (e.g., x,y,z coordinates and yaw/pitch/roll values) detailed in the patent’s specification (’998 Patent, Fig. 4B). This raises the question of whether the accused processor performs the specific function required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "means for attaching the sensing unit to said body part"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1(b) and is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction is critical because its scope is not defined by the words alone but is limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent to perform the "attaching" function, plus their structural equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement determination will depend on a direct comparison between the accused watch band and the patent’s disclosed structures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the list of structures in the specification is exemplary, and that "equivalents" should encompass any conventional structure for securing a watch-like device to a limb.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific corresponding structures, including "an elastic and/or adjustable band, for wrapping around the wrist," a "clamp," a "Velcro patch," and an "adhesive patch" (’998 Patent, col. 8:39-44). A party may argue that the term's scope is strictly limited to these examples and structures that are not substantially different from them.
The Term: "processor adapted to... calculate... data including at least the location and orientation of said body part"
- Context and Importance: This functional language in claim 1(c) defines the specific output required of the processor. The case may turn on whether the data calculated by the accused devices meets this requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality of the accused software and processor will be compared directly against this claim language.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that higher-level metrics, such as identifying a specific swim stroke, inherently require a calculation based on underlying "location and orientation" data, thus satisfying the limitation even if the raw coordinate data is not displayed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed example of the calculated data in a table, which explicitly includes columns for "Location S (x,y,z)" and "Orientation O (yaw, pitch, roll)" (’998 Patent, Fig. 4B). Defendant may argue that this demonstrates the inventors' intent for the claim to cover processors that calculate these specific types of spatial and rotational coordinates, not just abstract activity classifications.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating Defendant provides instructions that lead customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15, 30). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that Defendant supplies a material part of the invention that is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶15).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on the assertion that Defendant became "aware of the '998 Patent" and "intentionally continued their knowing infringement" without a "good faith defense" (Compl. ¶26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: under the rules for means-plus-function claiming, is the accused watch band structure an equivalent to the specific attachment mechanisms—such as an elastic band, clamp, or Velcro patch—disclosed in the ’998 Patent’s specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the accused processor’s software perform the specific calculation required by Claim 1—generating data that includes the "location and orientation" for each measurement, as exemplified in the patent—or does it calculate different, higher-level metrics that may fall outside the claim's functional scope?