DCT

7:25-cv-00155

Mobile Health Innovative Solutions LLC v. Citizen Watch Co Of America Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00155, W.D. Tex., 04/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically a retail store in San Marcos, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s CZ Smart smartwatches, which feature a "power gauge" to monitor user energy levels, infringe a patent related to determining a user's current load or stress level using biometric data gathered by a mobile device.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of wearable health technology, where smart devices use integrated sensors to monitor physiological and behavioral data to provide users with insights into their well-being.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the patent’s prosecution, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiner conducted a search of prior art and, after full consideration, allowed all claims to issue, suggesting the examiner found the invention to be novel and non-obvious over the cited art.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-08-01 '984 Patent Priority Date
2022-10-11 '984 Patent Issue Date
2025-04-07 Complaint Filing Date

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 identifies a deficiency in prior art methods for determining a person's stress level. It states these methods either rely on too few categories of biometric data, making them unreliable, or require the user to wear special, cumbersome dedicated hardware, which is costly and inconvenient (’984 Patent, col. 2:4-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using a general-purpose "mobile end unit," such as a smartphone, to solve this problem. It describes a software application that collects a "multiplicity of biometric data" from two sources: the phone's built-in sensors (e.g., gyroscope, microphone) and the user's interaction with other available applications (e.g., telephony, SMS). (’984 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-65). This combined data is then analyzed by an evaluation unit, potentially using neural networks, to determine the user's "current load level" without requiring extra hardware. (’984 Patent, col. 6:11-18).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed approach leverages the increasingly sophisticated sensors and software ecosystem of ubiquitous mobile devices to create a more holistic and less intrusive method for personal health monitoring. (’984 Patent, col. 4:35-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least independent method Claim 12 (Compl. ¶25).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 12 include:
    • Starting a further application on a mobile end unit.
    • Calculating biometric data of the user via that application, where the data is recorded from (1) user data from a plurality of other available applications and (2) signal data from at least one integrated sensor.
    • Dividing the biometric data into a plurality of categories.
    • Evaluating the biometric data with an evaluation unit (which uses a network of artificial neural networks) to determine the current load level.
    • The network calculation is supported by a plurality of processors and at least one graphics card processor to enable parallel computation.
  • The complaint also references Claim 1 in its inducement allegations and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "CZ Smart Sport Touchscreen" and the "CZ Smart Casual Touchscreen" smartwatches, referred to as the "Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused smartwatches include a "power gauge monitoring feature" designed to "estimate a user's cognitive and physical energy levels throughout the day." (Compl. ¶25).
  • This feature is alleged to derive its estimates from various inputs, including "alert scores, chronotype, sleep patterns, activity, and heart rate parameters." (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges these products are sold within the district, supporting this with a screenshot of Defendant’s store location in San Marcos, Texas (Compl. ¶8, Fig. 2). Figure 2 is a map screenshot showing the location of the "CITIZEN WATCH COMPANY STORE" within the San Marcos Premium Outlets (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a detailed claim chart comparing the elements of Claim 12 of the ’984 Patent to the Accused Products is provided as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶31). However, Exhibit B was not attached to the publicly filed complaint.

The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint alleges that the "power gauge monitoring feature" of the accused smartwatches constitutes the claimed "further application" for calculating a "current load level." (Compl. ¶25). The various inputs used by this feature—such as "sleep patterns, activity, and heart rate parameters"—are alleged to meet the "biometric data" limitation, which the claim requires to be derived from both integrated sensors and a plurality of available applications. (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s employees directly infringe by internally testing and using the products (Compl. ¶26), and that infringement also occurs under a divided infringement theory where actions of the end-user are attributable to the Defendant (Compl. ¶¶32-33).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the term "current load level," which the patent equates with "stress level" (’984 Patent, col. 1:13-15), can be construed to read on the "cognitive and physical energy levels" allegedly estimated by the accused products (Compl. ¶25). A further question is whether a smartwatch constitutes a "mobile end unit" as contemplated by the patent, which primarily describes smartphones and tablets (’984 Patent, col. 3:1-3).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused feature uses inputs like "alert scores" and "chronotype" in addition to sensor data (Compl. ¶25). A key factual question will be whether these inputs are derived from a "plurality of available applications" on the smartwatch, as required by Claim 12, or if they are generated within a single, monolithic application, which may not satisfy the claim element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "current load level"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the ultimate output of the claimed method and is central to the infringement analysis. The case may turn on whether the accused "power gauge" and "energy level" estimations fall within the scope of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses "current stress level" and "current load level" interchangeably and discusses monitoring for "depression and/or stress," suggesting a broad physiological or psychological state (’984 Patent, col. 1:13-15, col. 2:1-3).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details specific "categories of biometric data" that inform the analysis, such as "sleep, speech, motor functions, social interaction, economic data, personal data and questionnaire data" (’984 Patent, col. 4:45-49). A party could argue the term is limited to a "stress" metric derived from this specific combination of behavioral and physiological inputs, not a more generic "energy level."

  • The Term: "plurality of available applications"

    • Context and Importance: Claim 12 requires that the calculated biometric data be derived in part from "user data of said plurality of available applications." Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused smartwatches may use a single, integrated health suite rather than drawing data from multiple, distinct applications as described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself does not impose a specific character on the applications. Any two or more distinct software programs on the device from which user data is recorded could arguably satisfy the plain language.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of such applications, including "telephony, SMS, MMS, chat applications and/or browser applications," which are primarily communication-focused (’984 Patent, col. 2:62-65). An argument may be made that the term is contextually limited to applications of a similar nature, from which data like "social interaction" can be derived, as opposed to purely internal health-tracking applications.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the accused features in a manner that performs the steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶28-29). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused features are specially designed for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶30).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶23). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willful infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "current load level," which the patent frames in the context of psychological "stress," be construed to cover the "cognitive and physical energy levels" calculated by the accused smartwatches’ "power gauge" feature?
  • A second key issue will be one of technical implementation: does the accused system, operating on a smartwatch, meet the claim requirement of calculating biometric data from a "plurality of available applications," particularly where the patent's examples point toward communication-based applications (e.g., SMS, telephony) not typically central to a smartwatch's function?
  • A central evidentiary question will concern divided infringement: anticipating that the end-user performs some of the claimed method steps, the plaintiff will need to provide evidence that Defendant directs or controls its customers to perform those steps in a manner that satisfies the legal standard for direct infringement liability.