PTAB

IPR2022-00037

Apple Inc v. LoganTree LP

Key Events

Petition

petition

Case #: IPR2022-00037
Patent #: 6,059,576
Filed: October 15, 2021
Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
Patent Owner(s): Logantree LP
Challenged Claims: 1-5, 8-11, 20, 25, 30-32, 36, 39-42, 45-51, 61-65, 144, and 147

Title: Training and Safety Device, System and Method to Aid in Proper Movement During Physical Activity
Brief Description: The ’576 patent discloses a portable, self-contained device for monitoring body movement during physical activity. The device uses a movement sensor and microprocessor to measure parameters, compare them against user-defined operational parameters (e.g., thresholds), and detect, time-stamp, and store information about user-defined events.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ono (Patent 4,962,469) and Hutchings (Patent 5,899,963).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ono taught the basic framework of a portable, wrist-watch pedometer with a microprocessor, memory, user inputs, and an acceleration sensor that processed data against user-defined targets (e.g., stride length, target distance). Hutchings was argued to teach a more advanced wrist-worn runner's device using both accelerometers and rotational sensors to accurately measure movement, angle, and velocity in three dimensions, thereby calculating distance without requiring manual stride length input. The combination of Ono’s framework with Hutchings’ superior sensor system was alleged to render the claims obvious.
- Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Hutchings' advanced, multi-axis sensing system with Ono's device to provide more accurate speed and distance measurements. This combination would overcome a known limitation of systems like Ono, which required users to manually input and adjust stride lengths for different activities.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that the combination was a predictable integration of known sensor technologies into an existing exercise monitoring device to improve its core functionality and user convenience.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ono (Patent 4,962,469), Hutchings (Patent 5,899,963), and Amano (Patent 5,941,837).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Building on the Ono/Hutchings combination, Petitioner asserted that Amano taught an exercise support wristwatch that provides multiple forms of user notification—including visual messages on a display, audible alarms, and tactile vibrations—when a predefined target value is met. Amano also disclosed using an integrated watch circuit as a dedicated real-time clock.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would add Amano's varied notification features to the base Ono/Hutchings device to provide more versatile feedback, advantageously accommodating users with visual or hearing impairments. Further, Amano's dedicated watch circuit would be incorporated as an efficient real-time clock to reduce the processing load on the main microprocessor and conserve power.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ono (Patent 4,962,469), Hutchings (Patent 5,899,963), and Conlan (Patent 5,573,013).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Conlan taught a wrist-worn activity monitor that could be connected to a computer to download stored movement data for further processing, display, and analysis. Conlan also disclosed user-input pushbuttons that allow a user to manually mark the occurrence of a specific event in memory for later review.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would integrate Conlan's computer connectivity to allow for more sophisticated data analysis on a separate computer, free up the device's limited memory, and provide a more user-friendly interface for setting operational parameters. The addition of Conlan's event-marking buttons would allow users to flag moments of specific interest during an activity, enhancing the device's data logging capabilities.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness grounds combining Ono and Hutchings with Kaufman (for pace monitoring and feedback) and Hickman (for generating historical reports), as well as various four- and five-way combinations of these references. These grounds relied on similar motivations to add known features to improve user feedback and data analysis capabilities.

Petitioner argued for construing the term "movement sensor" to mean "one or more sensors capable of detecting movement and measuring movement data associated with the detected movement."
This construction was asserted to be central to the invalidity arguments, as it allows a combination of multiple distinct sensors from different prior art references (e.g., Ono's accelerometer and Hutchings' rotational sensors) to collectively satisfy the single "movement sensor" limitation of the claims, consistent with the patent's specification and prosecution history.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial of institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate.
The petition contended that the scheduled trial in co-pending litigation was not substantially earlier than the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD), making the timing factor neutral or favoring institution.
Petitioner emphasized that the litigation was at an early stage with minimal investment by the parties. It further noted its stipulation not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court, which eliminates concerns of inefficiency and duplicative efforts.
Finally, the petition asserted that the strong merits of its unpatentability grounds weighed heavily in favor of institution to promote system efficiency and integrity.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-5, 8-11, 20, 25, 30-32, 36, 39-42, 45-51, 61-65, 144, and 147 as unpatentable.