Under Armour Inc v. adidas AG

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-01528
• Patent #: 8,721,502
• Filed: July 1, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Under Armour, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): adidas AG
• Challenged Claims: 10-16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Displaying Performance Information
• Brief Description: The ’502 patent discloses methods for collecting and displaying athletic performance data. The challenged claims relate to receiving position points and two different performance parameter data sets (e.g., speed, heart rate) and initiating a graphical display where each performance parameter is represented by a different visual characteristic.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Fry - Claims 10-15 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Fry.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fry (Patent 6,002,982).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fry, which discloses a sports computer with an integrated GPS, teaches every limitation of claims 10-15. Fry’s device collects and stores geographical position points (GPS coordinates) along with multiple performance parameters like speed, altitude, and heart rate in its memory. Fry discloses two methods of graphical display: (1) plotting the traversed route over a map, and (2) plotting multiple performance parameters concurrently to show correlations, such as the effect of incline on heart rate. Petitioner contended that these displays meet the claim limitations for visual characteristics, as Fry’s pop-up menu uses distinct text labels (“SPEED,” “ALT”) for different parameters, and the concurrent plotting of multiple parameters inherently requires distinguishable visual characteristics (e.g., labels, line styles, or colors) to be intelligible.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Fry in view of Ohlenbusch - Claims 10-15 are obvious over Fry in view of Ohlenbusch.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fry (Patent 6,002,982), Ohlenbusch (Patent 6,882,955).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to anticipation. Petitioner argued that if the Board determined Fry's disclosure of a pop-up menu with text labels was not a non-textual "visual characteristic," Ohlenbusch explicitly supplied this teaching. Fry provided the base system for collecting correlated GPS and performance data. Ohlenbusch taught displaying multiple performance parameters (speed, pace, heart rate, etc.) graphically against distance, explicitly showing the use of different line styles (e.g., solid vs. hatched) to represent different parameters on the same graph.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that both references taught the benefit of simultaneously plotting multiple parameters to analyze correlations. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) reviewing Fry's system and its goal of analyzing performance would be motivated to incorporate Ohlenbusch’s clear and effective method of using distinct line styles to display data. This would allow for a more direct visual comparison of data sets on a single graph, thereby achieving Fry’s stated purpose more effectively.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining different data sets onto a single graphical plot using distinct visual identifiers like line styles was a well-known, simple, and predictable technique at the time, common in data visualization software.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Fry in view of Ohlenbusch - Claim 16 is obvious over Fry in view of Ohlenbusch.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fry (Patent 6,002,982), Ohlenbusch (Patent 6,882,955).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed claim 16, which requires the first and second visual characteristics to be a "first line style" and a "second line style." Petitioner argued that while Fry provided the foundational method of claim 10, Ohlenbusch explicitly disclosed the specific limitation of claim 16. The figures in Ohlenbusch (e.g., Figs. 33A-36B) depicted graphs where different performance parameters, such as speed and stride length, were plotted together as a function of distance using different, distinguishable line styles (e.g., a solid line for one parameter and a line with cross-hatches for another).
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground 2: to improve the visualization and analysis of correlated performance data as taught by both references. Applying Ohlenbusch's specific use of different line styles to Fry's data collection system was argued to be an obvious design choice to achieve a predictable improvement in data presentation.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was deemed predictable, as this combination represented a simple application of a known data visualization technique to a known type of data set.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "position points" (claim 10): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "geographic position points." While the term does not appear in the specification, related terms like "position data" are used in the context of simulating a geographic route, which necessitates that the data corresponds to a geographic location.
• "during the physical activity" (claims 10, 14): Petitioner contended this phrase should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, requiring only that the claimed steps occur while the activity is happening. Petitioner specifically argued against a narrower construction of "in substantially real-time," which it noted the Patent Owner had proposed in co-pending litigation.
• "graphical display that comprises a representation of the physical activity" (claim 10): Petitioner proposed this means "a display that comprises a representation of the physical activity that includes non-textual elements." This construction covers both plotting the route itself and graphing the performance parameters, as shown in the patent's figures.
• "a second visual characteristic that is different that [sic] the first visual characteristic" (claim 10): Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "a second visual characteristic that is distinguishable from the first visual characteristic," citing examples from the specification such as different text labels and different line styles.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 10-16 of the ’502 patent as unpatentable.