Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2025.OPINION.11-1-2024_2412643.pdf"><em>Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC, et al</em>., Nos. 2022‑2025, ‑2028, ‑2029, ‑2030, ‑2032, ‑2037 (Nov. 1, 2024)</a>, affirming summary judgment of noninfringement.

core/paragraph

In separate cases (later consolidated for appeal), Cellspin alleged defendants Fitbit, Fossil, Garmin, Nike, Nikon, and Under Armour infringed three patents relating to automatic data transfer from a data capture device to the internet via a mobile device. Generally, the claims recite data transfer methods whereby a Bluetooth enabled data capture device—<em>e.g. </em>a camera—is paired with a mobile device such that newly acquired data is automatically transferred from the data capture device to the mobile device, which attaches user-identifying information to the data before transferring it to a web service. The district court’s claim construction, which was not appealed, required continuous pairing between the data capture device, which acquires new data, and the mobile device, which receives the new data and supplements it with user-identifying information. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of all defendants. Cellspin appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. For the Fitbit, Fossil, and Garmin devices, the Court held Cellspin failed to adduce evidence that data sent from those devices is supplemented with user-identifying information. The only feature Cellspin asserted satisfied these limitations—OAuth—was not disclosed in its infringement contentions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the argument for failure to comply with the local patent rules.

Regarding Nike’s alleged infringement, the Court affirmed the district court’s determination that Cellspin failed to show the data capture device, rather than the mobile device, attached user-identifying information. And the Court further affirmed the district court’s determination that Cellspin failed to show that the processor performed all the functions it was required to perform. Finally, regarding the Nikon and Under Armour devices, the Court affirmed the district court’s determination that Cellspin failed to show the accused devices maintained a continuous Bluetooth connection, as required by the unchallenged claim construction.

CAFC Affirms Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of Data Transfer Patents

Related Professionals