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
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01153, allowing ASUSTeK to challenge Nokia's patent 10536714 after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Netskope, Inc.vsK.Mizra LLC
Cisco, Forescout and HPE challenged K.Mizra’s 2012 network‑quarantine patent. The PTAB found the challengers failed to prove obviousness over prior art and upheld all claims.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373. The Board terminated the proceeding by grant of a joint motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Google LLCvsCellular South Inc
Google’s request for director review of a denied PTAB institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the request merely recycles previously rejected arguments about the “settled expectations” doctrine. The patent owner urges the Board to uphold the discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01187, citing a settlement agreement and requesting the agreement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
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.