DCT

7:25-cv-00571

Unaliwear Inc v. Google LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00571, W.D. Tex., 12/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Google maintains a regular and established place of business in the District, including a corporate office and a retail store in Austin, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Pixel Watch products infringe two patents related to wearable assist devices that use sensor data and server-side processing to learn a user's activity patterns and provide assistance when deviations are detected.
  • Technical Context: The technology operates in the mobile personal emergency response services (mPERS) field, aiming to improve automatic fall detection and user assistance for vulnerable populations by creating personalized behavioral models to reduce false alarms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes the filing of a "companion action in the International Trade Commission also detailing allegations of infringement of the Asserted Patent against Defendant," indicating a parallel litigation strategy seeking potentially faster injunctive relief from the ITC.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-09-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,051,410 and 10,687,193
2018-08-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,051,410 Issues
2020-06-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,687,193 Issues
2025-12-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,051,410 - “Assist Device and System”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for technology that allows ill, elderly, or infirm persons to live independently by providing monitoring and assistance in an "unobtrusive, dignified manner" (ʼ410 Patent, col. 1:20-37). Existing solutions are described as not being readily available or convenient.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system centered on a wearable device that collects activity data from a user via sensors. This data is transmitted to a server, which analyzes the data to learn the user's specific activity patterns and generate "behavioral rules." These personalized rules are then sent back to the device. The device compares the user's current activity against these rules to detect deviations that may indicate a need for assistance (ʼ410 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-54).
  • Technical Importance: This approach of creating and updating personalized behavioral rules based on historical user data aims to improve the accuracy of alerts and reduce false positives, a critical factor in user adoption of personal emergency devices (ʼ410 Patent, col. 1:46-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
  • Claim 1 of the ’410 Patent requires, in essence:
    • A wearable device with a power source, processor, physiologic sensor, user interface, network interface, and memory.
    • The device is programmed to collect activity data from the physiologic sensor.
    • It provides the collected data to a server for processing to "create or update behavioral rules for the wearer," which are based on historical data like location mapping and sleep/wake cycles.
    • It receives the behavioral rules back from the server.
    • It provides assistance to the wearer when a check of the wearer's activity against the received behavioral rules indicates a deviation.

U.S. Patent No. 10,687,193 - “Assist Device and System”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as its parent ’410 Patent: the lack of accurate, convenient, and unobtrusive monitoring systems for vulnerable individuals who wish to live independently (ʼ193 Patent, col. 1:27-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is architecturally similar to the ’410 Patent, involving a wearable device that collects activity data and communicates with a remote computer. The ’193 Patent frames the server-side output as a "parameterized rule-based custom data model." This model, representing the user's activity profile, is sent from the server to the device, which uses it for on-device comparison to detect activity that is inconsistent with the user's learned patterns (ʼ193 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-39).
  • Technical Importance: The use of a custom, parameterized data model allows the system to adapt to an individual user's unique lifestyle, improving the system's ability to distinguish between a genuine emergency and a mere change in routine (ʼ193 Patent, col. 2:40-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Claim 1 of the ’193 Patent requires, in essence:
    • A wearable device with a power source, processor, physiologic sensor, user interface, network interface, and memory.
    • The device is programmed to collect physical activity data related to times and locations.
    • It provides this data to a remote computer to "create or update a parameterized rule-based custom data model for the wearer."
    • It receives this custom data model back from the remote computer.
    • It communicates with the wearer when a comparison of current activity against the custom data model indicates the activity is "not consistent" with the model.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the Accused Products as "Google wearable products, including Google Pixel Watch products such as the Google Pixel Watch 3" (Compl. ¶1, ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "wearable devices with activity tracking technology including for automatic fall detection" (Compl. ¶1). It does not provide further technical detail on how the accused fall detection or activity tracking systems operate, nor does it make specific allegations regarding the products' market positioning (Compl. ¶1-42).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or a detailed narrative of its infringement theory in the body of the complaint. Instead, it refers to external exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were not filed with the complaint, stating they contain a description of infringement (Compl. ¶22, ¶35). The complaint’s narrative allegations are general, asserting that the normal and customary use of the Accused Products infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶25, ¶38). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

The infringement analysis may raise several key questions regarding the specific operation of the accused Google Pixel Watch system.

  • Architectural Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system practices the specific two-way data flow recited in the claims. Does the Pixel Watch send raw user activity data to a Google server for the express purpose of creating or updating a personalized model, which is then transmitted back to the watch for on-device comparison? The claims appear to require this specific client-server architecture, which may differ from a system where all analysis and alerting logic resides entirely in the cloud or entirely on the device.
  • Technical Questions: The case may also turn on the nature of the algorithms used by Google. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system generates "behavioral rules" or a "custom data model" based on the specific historical data points recited in the claims (e.g., "location mapping," "sleep/wake cycles"), as opposed to employing a more generic, population-based machine learning model for fall detection?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "behavioral rules" (’410 Patent, claim 1) and "parameterized rule-based custom data model" (’193 Patent, claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: These related terms are the core of the claimed invention, defining the personalized analytical framework that is generated by the server and used by the device. The construction of these terms will likely determine the degree of personalization and the specific data inputs required for a finding of infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the server using "various engines to modify the existing rules," which could suggest a functional definition not tied to a specific data structure (ʼ410 Patent, col. 2:7-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Both patents explicitly define the "rules" or "model" as being created from a specific list of "historical wearer data including location mapping... identification of a home area, location boundaries, sleep/wake cycles... and physiological sensor measurements" (ʼ410 Patent, col. 19:28-34; ʼ193 Patent, Abstract). A defendant may argue that to meet this limitation, an accused model must be demonstrably based on this combination of specified data types.

  • The Term: "physiologic sensor" (’410 Patent, claim 1; ʼ193 Patent, claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: The claims require data collection from a "physiologic sensor." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could include or exclude the standard motion sensors (accelerometers, gyroscopes) found in consumer smartwatches.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents are directed to monitoring "physical activity patterns," suggesting that sensors measuring physical motion, like accelerometers, could be considered "physiologic" in the context of the invention (ʼ410 Patent, col. 1:4-6).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly lists examples of "physiologic measures" as "(e.g., body temperature, blood pressure, pulse, to name a few)" (ʼ410 Patent, col. 6:45-47). This language could support a narrower construction limited to sensors that measure biological vital signs rather than just physical motion.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, asserting that Google instructs customers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner through user manuals and online materials (Compl. ¶24, ¶37).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents. The complaint bases this knowledge on Plaintiff's patent marking, public availability of its patent portfolio, and the filing of the complaint and a parallel ITC action (Compl. ¶19, ¶26, ¶33, ¶39). The allegations appear to cover both pre-suit and post-suit conduct.

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

This case will likely involve a deep inquiry into the software architecture and algorithmic details of Google's wearable technology. The central questions for the court appear to be:

  • A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: Does discovery evidence show that the accused Google Pixel Watch system employs the specific two-way communication loop recited in the claims—where a personalized user model is created on a server and transmitted back to the device for on-board analysis—or does it use a fundamentally different architecture for activity monitoring and fall detection?
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the terms "behavioral rules" and "custom data model," which the patents tie to specific data inputs like location mapping and sleep cycles, be construed to cover a general-purpose machine learning algorithm that is merely personalized using a wearer's motion data?
  • A dispositive preliminary question may be one of technical scope: Does the claim term "physiologic sensor" require a sensor measuring biological vital signs (like heart rate), or can it be read broadly to cover the standard accelerometers and gyroscopes used for motion tracking in virtually all smartwatches?