Biometric specialist Valencell – whose technology is licensed by iRiver, LG, Sony and others – has filed a lawsuit accusing Apple of using underhand tactics to gain access to its patented technology for use in the Apple Watch.
The company claims that Apple violated three of its patents for improving the accuracy and reliability of heart-rate data when using the photoplethysmography (PPG) approach used in the Apple Watch. But the lawsuit alleges more than just patent infringement, reports AI: it also claims that Apple used deceptive techniques to get access to the technology …
Specifically, it suggests that Apple feigned interest in a partnership agreement with Valencell, and that IP addresses belonging to Apple were used to download white papers using fake contact details.
Apple […] obtained such white papers by providing fictitious information. On March 27, 2013 and May 5, 2014, one or more Apple agents downloaded the “PerformTek Precision Biometrics: Engaging the Burgeoning Mobile Health and Fitness Market” white paper from Valencell using fictitious names. On March 10, 2014 and April 23, 2015, one or more Apple agents downloaded the “Earbud-Based Sensor for the Assessment of Energy Expenditure, Heart Rate, and VO2 max” white paper from Valencell using fictitious names. On April 1, 2015 an Apple agent downloaded the “Earbud-Based Sensor for the Assessment of Energy Expenditure, Heart Rate, and VO2 max” white paper from Valencell using a fictitious
It alleges that seven Apple employees did this. The lawsuit names these individuals, and says that all seven not only worked on the Apple Watch, but were specifically involved in development of the heart-rate sensor.
A separate lawsuit makes similar allegations against Fitbit for technology used in the Charge HR and Surge.
In the run-up to the launch of the Watch, Apple focused attention on the advanced heart-rate monitoring capabilities of the device, whose accuracy has been found to rival dedicated monitors. The company adjusted the behaviour of the heart-rate monitor in watchOS 1.0.1.
We have invited Apple to comment on the allegations and will update with any response received.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
“Biometric company’s lawsuit accuses Apple of underhand tactics”
Underhanded.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/underhand American English does seem to favor underhanded, but both versions are recognized as valid.
As doesBritish English!
White papers include the stuff people want to share about their technology. Complaining that Apple read their white paper is ridiculous!
Was wondering the same thing. If they violated their patents that’s one thing, but simply downloading a competitor’s white sheet is just basic research and awareness of the competition.
Exactly. And not to mention the fact that a lot of these dates are in April 2015. Just days before the watch started shipping. Who cares that they downloaded white papers? That’s all public information. Also how do they get specific names from Apple IP addresses? Smh
Lot of these dates? I see mostly 2013 and 2014.
Pretty sure the lawsuit is more about the alleged patent violations. But it’s totally not ridiculous to focus on the portion about the white papers. /s
Whether Apple infringed on their patents is up for debate and up to the courts to decide. I agree the anecdotal evidence of white papers is flimsy. Just as flimsy as basing your retort to the suit on said anecdote.
They are just white papers… This sounds ridiculous.
I don’t know about the validity of the lawsuit, but I can attest that the Scosche Rhythm+, which uses a Valencell heart rate monitor, is by far the most accurate optical heart rate monitor on the market. In fact, I pair it to my Apple Watch when doing any type of cross-training because Apple Watch is pretty much useless for monitoring heart rate outside of basic cardio-based activities. I was actually hoping Apple would acquire Valencell or Mio.
I’m no lawyer, but I think the infringement via white papers boils down to timing of when Valencell posted the white papers and applied for their patents. I think that is why they mention the white papers and dates.
Perhaps they tied the ip addresses to known party communications with the same ip addresses.
I know I’ve been saying this at least a couple times a year for the last decade, and since it’s 2016…. Doesn’t it seem like this patent infringement litigation is getting ridiculous. Seems like penalties need to be stiffer and more severe all away around. Just saying…
Very clever, but no cigar. This company is trying to evoke the outrage and trigger the massive penalties that ERP giant SAP had to pay fellow gargantuan competitor Oracle in the early 2000’s over “inappropriate downloads”:
http://www.cio.com/article/2438573/it-organization/sap-admits-to–inappropriate-downloads–in-oracle-case.html
But, as many commenters have rightly stated, White Papers contain information that companies actually wish to share about their products, and actively encourage their download. Signs of financial troubles ahead? Face the music and dance…
Wow, now even downloading white papers is an invitation to a lawsuit