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

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

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.