PTAB

IPR2015-01891

Under Armour Inc v. adidas AG

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: Monitoring and Displaying Athletic Position and Performance Data
Brief Description: The ’276 patent discloses methods and systems for monitoring athletic activity by combining data from distinct modules. The invention purports to solve the problem of prior art devices lacking interoperability by creating a "modular personal network." Core claims involve receiving position data from a GPS receiver, receiving performance data (e.g., heart rate) from a physically separate monitor, correlating the two data streams, and displaying the combined athletic information.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Satava (a September 2000 journal article titled "The Physiologic Cipher at Altitude: Telemedicine and Real-Time Monitoring of Climbers on Mount Everest").
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Satava discloses every element of these claims. Satava describes a 1999 experiment where climbers on Mt. Everest used wearable monitoring systems. These systems included a GPS module for position tracking and a physically separate vital signs monitor (VSM) for performance data like heart rate, satisfying the core limitations of independent claims 1 and 16. Data from both modules was correlated via time-stamping and "geostamping" and transmitted to remote computers at Yale University. These remote computers displayed the climber's location on a terrain map alongside their vital signs in real-time. This remote display of correlated data satisfies limitations related to displaying performance information (claim 1[d]), on a map (claim 8), on a remote computer (claim 23), and during the athletic activity (claim 3).
- Key Aspects: The display in Satava's Figure 4, which shows a terrain map with climbers' positions and separate thumbnail graphics of their vital signs, was central to Petitioner's argument that all data was displayed simultaneously over a graphical representation of the route.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Satava (a 2000 journal article) and Garmin (the May 2000 owner's manual for the Garmin eTrex Summit handheld GPS device).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to anticipation. If Satava's "terrain map" was deemed insufficient to teach the "elevation profile" limitation of dependent claims 9 and 22, Petitioner argued that Garmin explicitly remedies this deficiency. The Garmin manual teaches a dedicated "Elevation Page" that displays a graphical profile of elevation changes over distance or time for a user's route.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Garmin’s well-known elevation profile display with Satava's real-time monitoring system to provide more comprehensive and useful data. Both references are directed to monitoring individuals during hiking and climbing. For the scientists monitoring climbers in Satava, having a clear elevation profile would be highly desirable for analyzing performance and safety, as elevation directly correlates to oxygen levels and potential metabolic issues.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended there would be no technical barrier to this combination. Satava's system already included a GPS receiver capable of calculating elevation data; displaying this known data type in a conventional profile format as taught by Garmin would have been a straightforward implementation for a POSITA.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Stubbs (Patent 6,736,759).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Stubbs, which teaches an exercise monitoring system, anticipates the claims related to performance zone alerts. Stubbs discloses using a GPS device to periodically determine a user's location and calculate position-based performance characteristics such as velocity and pace. Critically, Stubbs teaches that its system can be programmed to activate an alarm if a data value, such as pace, "departs from a predetermined limit or range." This directly teaches the core limitation of claim 10: controlling playback of content when an individual falls outside a predetermined performance zone. Stubbs further specifies that the alarm provides an "audible and/or visible indication," anticipating claim 15's requirement that the content comprise audio or visual content.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 16-19 and 21-23 were also obvious over Satava alone as a fallback position, arguing that if any minor element was not explicitly disclosed, it would have been an obvious design choice. Petitioner also presented an alternative ground for anticipation of claims 10 and 15 based on Gardner (Patent 7,454,002).

position data: Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "data relating to geographic position." This construction was asserted as consistent with the patent's specification and intrinsic evidence, and it was crucial for mapping prior art references that disclosed standard GPS location tracking.
during the athletic activity: Petitioner asserted this phrase and its variants should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. This position was taken to counter a potentially narrower interpretation of "in substantially real-time," ensuring that data processing and display that occur during the overall activity, even with minor, inherent system delays, would still fall within the claim's scope as understood by a POSITA.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 6-10, 15-19, and 21-23 of the ’276 patent as unpatentable.