ITC ALJ Finds Jawbone’s Health- and Sleep-Monitoring Patents Directed to Ineligible Subject Matter

May 6, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

First, ALJ Lord found both patents directed to the abstract ideas of collecting and monitoring sleep and other health-related data. The ’413 patent claims a “system for monitoring and reporting a human status parameter of an individual” comprising a housing that includes two sensors for generating physiological data, a processor for calculating sleep onset and wake information, and a transceiver to output said information. Similarly, the ’707 patent claims a “system for detecting, monitoring, and reporting a status of an individual to a user” that comprises two sensors for generating physiological data, a processor, a monitoring unit and an output device, wherein the processor or monitoring unit processes the data collected by the sensors and outputs information regarding the processed data.

With respect to the ’413 patent, ALJ Lord found that monitoring sleep patterns is an abstract idea that has been practiced for centuries and can be carried out in the human brain. Jawbone did not invent any of the means for monitoring sleep recited in the patent; rather it used well- known, existing sensors to collect sleep data in a conventional manner. The physical components of the system, such as the sensors, do not rescue the claims from ineligibility because they are not new and only limit the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment.

Moving to step two of the Mayo test, ALJ Lord found that neither patent claimed an innovative concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter, as they both used only generic computer hardware used in conventional fashion to collect and organize human activity that was previously performed by human beings. A computer’s improvement in monitoring speed and accuracy does not provide a sufficient inventive concept because this is merely what computers do. All of the claimed hardware is generic, and Jawbone did not invent any of the processors, sensors or transceivers that are in the system, or use any of the components in new or unexpected ways.

ALJ Lord found the claims of the ’707 patent ineligible for reasons similar to those for the ’413 patent. The ’707 patent claims the abstract idea of collecting information about an individual’s health status and presenting that information to an individual. Doctors and nurses routinely perform this type of data collection and data output using pen and paper, and nothing in the claims transforms the quality of the collected data. Also, the ’707 patent does not describe any technological advance and relies purely on conventional electronic devices.

In the Matter of Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-963, Order No. 54 (April 27, 2016 ITC).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.