PTAB

IPR2023-01434

AliveCor Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Aggregating and Sharing Wellness Data
  • Brief Description: The ’898 patent discloses methods and systems for aggregating wellness data from a plurality of sources (e.g., electronic devices, software applications) and sharing it with a plurality of destinations. The invention purports to solve prior art limitations by providing a unified interface for users to control the storage, viewing, and sharing of health data collected by different devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness over Molettiere - Claims 1-11, 18, 20-23, 25-34, 41, and 43-45 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 over Molettiere.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Molettiere (Patent 8,849,610).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Molettiere discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Molettiere teaches a data synthesizer system that receives and aggregates activity data from a plurality of biometric devices (sources), such as pedometers and fitness trackers. Users approve sources by setting up new devices via a user interface. Molettiere further discloses exporting this data to other devices or third-party services like MyFitnessPal (destinations). Petitioner contended that Molettiere’s user interfaces show graphical representations of aggregated wellness data and include selectable "ON/OFF" options for data sharing, which meets the limitations of claim 1. Dependent claims related to ranking sources, identifying data with timestamps, and displaying lists of sources were also allegedly disclosed through Molettiere's prioritization features and device management interfaces.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For any claim element not explicitly disclosed, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to a POSITA. For example, if displaying the list of approved destinations was not explicit, a POSITA would have been motivated to do so to provide users with necessary control over their data for privacy reasons.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in making any minor modifications because Molettiere discloses similar interfaces and functionality for managing source devices.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Cohen - Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 16, 18, 23, 26, 32, 33, 39, and 41 are obvious over Cohen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cohen (Patent 9,730,621).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Cohen’s remote health monitoring system renders the claims obvious. Cohen describes a system with multiple “host monitoring systems” (sources) that gather health data (e.g., glucose levels) and transmit it to “remote monitors” used by caretakers (destinations). Cohen’s system includes a dashboard that displays aggregated wellness data as a trend graph and provides user interfaces to configure permissions. Petitioner specifically pointed to a settings page in Cohen that allows a user to toggle permission for a remote monitor to view the trend graph, arguing this is a "selectable data sharing option." The dashboard also displays lists of approved sources (hosts) and destinations (remote monitors), mapping to other key claim limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Yuen in view of Molettiere - Claims 1, 9-10, 18, 20-22, 23, 32-33, 41, and 43-45 are obvious over Yuen in view of Molettiere.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yuen (Patent 9,173,576) and Molettiere (Patent 8,849,610).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Yuen discloses a biometric monitoring device that collects physiologic data, can receive data from other external monitoring devices (sources), and can transmit data to destinations like third-party websites or services (e.g., Garmin's website). Yuen teaches that a user can control data sharing by enabling or disabling communication with these destinations. Molettiere was cited to supply a more advanced and intuitive user interface for managing multiple devices, graphically displaying aggregated activity data, and providing selectable data sharing options to control data collection and sharing with granularity.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Molettiere’s user-friendly interface and superior data management capabilities with Yuen’s biometric monitoring device. This combination would serve the known goal of providing users with a single, comprehensive application to easily set up, configure, and view wellness data from various sources, thereby providing more accurate and useful information to the user.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involves integrating known user interface features with a known type of biometric device to achieve a predictable and desirable result.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is not warranted because the factors favor institution. Petitioner contended that the parallel district court case is in its early stages with no significant investment in discovery, and the trial date is set for July 7, 2025, more than two months after the deadline for a Final Written Decision in this IPR. Petitioner also stipulated that it will withdraw any identical invalidity grounds from the district court litigation if the IPR is instituted. Finally, Petitioner asserted that the grounds presented are compelling and highly likely to prevail.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11, 16, 18, 20-23, 25-34, 41, and 43-45 of the ’898 patent as unpatentable.