Zepp Labs Inc v. Blast Motion Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00677
• Patent #: 8,944,928
• Filed: February 24, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Zepp Labs, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Blast Motion, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Virtual Reality System for Viewing Current and Previously Stored or Calculated Motion Data
• Brief Description: The ’928 patent describes a system for capturing, analyzing, and viewing motion data using portable wireless motion sensors. The system transmits captured data to a mobile device, which processes the data for display in a virtual reality environment, such as creating 3D overlays of the user's motion.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Mahajan - Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 11 are obvious over Mahajan

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Mahajan (Application # 2006/0025229), which incorporates by reference Lee (Patent 6,224,493).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mahajan, by itself, taught every limitation of independent claim 1. Mahajan described a motion tracking system for a golf club (the "iClub") that used a motion capture element with sensors (accelerometers, gyroscopes), a microcontroller, on-board memory, and a radio. This element wirelessly transmitted motion data to a mobile device like a PDA or cell phone. The mobile device ran software to receive, analyze, store, and display the motion data. Petitioner contended Mahajan explicitly disclosed displaying swing data in a "virtual reality equipment" environment and overlaying animation on video of a user, which meets the "avatar" limitation. Dependent claims 4, 7, 8, and 11 were argued to be obvious as they recited functions inherent to or expressly disclosed by Mahajan’s system, such as displaying swing history (claim 4), transmitting data to a remote computer (claim 7), accessing data from a remote server (claim 8), and exchanging data between users in a teaching environment (claim 11).
  • Motivation to Combine: As a single-reference ground, the argument was that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to implement the claimed method using the system fully disclosed in Mahajan. All hardware components were described as common, off-the-shelf technology by 2010.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because implementing the claimed software functions on the standard hardware platform described by Mahajan involved predictable and well-known programming techniques.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Mahajan and Dugan - Claim 2 is obvious over Mahajan in view of Dugan

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Mahajan (Application # 2006/0025229) and Dugan (Application # 2008/0085778).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Mahajan taught the base system of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. Claim 2 added the limitation that the computer is configured to display information "based on a comparison" of current motion data with previously stored data from the same or another user. While Mahajan disclosed a "grouping function" to identify swing similarities, which implied comparison, Dugan explicitly taught a golf monitoring system where a mobile device could "graph or chart swing information, compare the same to historical information about the golfer's swings or the swings of an instructor or golf pro." Dugan's express teaching of quantitative comparison was argued to meet the limitation of claim 2.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Dugan's explicit teaching of comparative analysis with Mahajan's motion capture and display system to provide more robust and useful feedback to an athlete. Petitioner argued that combining different known feedback techniques, such as Mahajan's qualitative grouping and Dugan's quantitative comparison, was a simple and obvious design choice to enhance the system's functionality.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known data analysis technique (comparison, per Dugan) to a known type of data set (motion data, per Mahajan), which would have been a straightforward task for a POSITA with a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "said data": Petitioner argued this term was indefinite due to multiple, unclear antecedent bases throughout the claims. However, should the Board construe the term, Petitioner proposed it should mean "data that comprises sensor values." This construction was critical to mapping prior art disclosures of sensor readings to the various claim steps involving the transmission, storage, and analysis of "said data."
• "virtual reality display": Petitioner proposed this term includes a display that enables a user to interact with a simulated environment that renders visual simulations of the user's physical movements.
• "avatar": Petitioner proposed this term includes a computer graphical representation of a user that is manipulated by the user, tying the display output to a representation of the actual user whose motion was captured.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Commoditization of Hardware: A central contention was that the hardware elements of the claims—microprocessor-based wireless sensors, mobile devices like the iPhone, memory, and radios—were well-known, readily available off-the-shelf components by 2010. Petitioner argued that because the hardware was conventional, any potential patentability in the ’928 patent would have to reside in software-implemented functions. The petition then argued these functions were also disclosed in the prior art.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11 of the ’928 patent as unpatentable.