Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.

Representative Claim

’794 patent
1. A method for acquiring and transferring data from a Bluetooth enabled data capture device to one or more web services via a Bluetooth enabled mobile device, the method comprising:

providing a software module on the Bluetooth enabled data capture device;

providing a software module on the Bluetooth enabled mobile device;

establishing a paired connection between the Bluetooth enabled data capture device and the Bluetooth enabled mobile device;

acquiring new data in the Bluetooth enabled data capture device, wherein new data is data acquired after the paired connection is established;

detecting and signaling the new data for transfer to the Bluetooth enabled mobile device, wherein detecting and signaling the new data for transfer comprises:

determining the existence of new data for transfer, by the software module on the Bluetooth enabled data capture device;

and sending a data signal to the Bluetooth enabled mobile device, corresponding to existence of new data, by the software module on the Bluetooth enabled data capture device automatically, over the established paired Bluetooth connection, wherein the software module on the Bluetooth enabled mobile device listens for the data signal sent from the Bluetooth enabled data capture device, wherein if permitted by the software module on the Bluetooth enabled data capture device, the data signal sent to the Bluetooth enabled mobile device comprises a data signal and one or more portions of the new data;
transferring the new data from the Bluetooth enabled data capture device to the Bluetooth enabled mobile device automatically over the paired Bluetooth connection by the software module on the Bluetooth enabled data capture device;

receiving, at the Bluetooth enabled mobile device, the new data from the Bluetooth enabled data capture device;

applying, using the software module on the Bluetooth enabled mobile device, a user identifier to the new data for each destination web service, wherein each user identifier uniquely identifies a particular user of the web service;

transferring the new data received by the Bluetooth enabled mobile device along with a user identifier to the one or more web services, using the software module on the Bluetooth enabled mobile device;

receiving, at the one or more web services, the new data and user identifier from the Bluetooth enabled mobile device, wherein the one or more web services receive the transferred new data corresponding to a user identifier;

and making available, at the one or more web services, the new data received from the Bluetooth enabled mobile device for public or private consumption over the internet, wherein one or more portions of the new data correspond to a particular user identifier.

Posture:

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Nos. 4:17-cv-05928-YGR, 4:17-cv-05929-YGR, 4:17-cv-05931-YGR, 4:17-cv-05933-YGR, 4:17-cv-05934-YGR, 4:17-cv-05938-YGR, 4:17-cv-05939-YGR, 4:17-cv-05941-YGR, 4:17-cv-06881-YGR, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

Abstract Idea: Yes

The Federal Circuit found that the asserted claims were drawn to the idea of capturing and transmitting data from one device to another, not improving Internet-incapable data capture devices and mobile networks, as the patent owner argued. The Federal Circuit also dismissed the patent owner’s arguments that precedent was distinguishable because the claims at issue recited technological improvements. According to the Court, the need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem.

Something More: Yes

The patent owner identified several ways in which its application of capturing, transferring, and publishing data was unconventional. The patent owner also alleged that its specific ordered combination of elements was inventive. In disagreeing with the district court’s finding that the patent owner did not sufficiently identify unconventional aspects recited in the specification, the Federal Circuit stated “as long as what makes the claims inventive is recited by the claims, the specification need not expressly list all the reasons why this claimed structure is unconventional.” The Federal Circuit also held “that factual disputes about whether an aspect of the claims is inventive may preclude dismissal at the pleadings stage under § 101.” Accepting the allegations as true, the Federal Circuit therefore would not conclude that the asserted claims lacked an inventive concept.