Short Summary
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 75 claims of U.S. Patent 10,278,647, arguing they are obvious over a 2015 academic paper on wrist‑type photoplethysmography. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025‑00523), Zepp Health Corporation challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,278,647 owned by the University of Connecticut. The petitioner asserts that claims 1‑75 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of the Lai publication (Ex‑1005), which discloses the same heart‑rate and SpO₂ monitoring methods using photoplethysmography and accelerometer data. The petition further argues that discretionary denial would be inappropriate, citing favorable Fintiv factors and the absence of a §325(d) prior‑art presentation during prosecution. Related district‑court litigation involving the same parties is noted, but no settlement is indicated. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Zepp Health Corporation vs University of Connecticut is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung submits an authorized response opposing Wilus’s request for director review, arguing the examiner erred materially and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The IPR remains instituted pending the Board’s decision.
Belden Inc. et al.vsCommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
CommScope successfully defends its flexible cable bag patent as the PTAB denies Belden’s request for director review of a denied institution.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not disclose the required game‑processor features and one reference is not prior art. The Board is urged to deny institution.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment files a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited Kelly and Walker references do not anticipate or render obvious any of the 20 challenged claims of its 8,529,336 gaming patent.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition targeting Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency gaming patent was rejected. The patent owner showed the prior art fails to disclose key claim elements and that no motivation to combine existed.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.