Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies, v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC: Obviousness

Published 08/31/2020 by CIONCA IP Team

Introduction

On August 6, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made decision in Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies, v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC. In August 2017, Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit”) filed a petition to initiate inter partes review against U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212 (“the ‘212 patent”) owned by Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies (“Blackbird”), asserting that claims 2, 5, and 6 (“the claims”) were unpatentable as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,241,684 (“Amano”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,033,013 (“Kato”). In December 2017, Wahoo Fitness LLC (“Wahoo”) also filed a petition to initiate inter partes review of the claims relying on the same grounds as Fitbit. Subsequently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) instituted the requested inter partes reviews and consolidated the proceedings. The ‘212 patent generally describes and claims a device that counts a user’s steps and, based on the number and rate of the steps, provides the user with information like distance traveled and speed. Upon review in March 2019, the Board found that Fitbit failed to demonstrate that claims 2 and 5 were unpatentable as obvious but determined that Fitbit had proven claim 6 unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Kato and Amano. Blackbird timely appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). The Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s determination.

Decision

Naturally, the Federal Circuit performed an analysis of all the Board’s final determinations, as described below:

1. Prior Art Teachings. In the appeal before the Federal Circuit, Blackbird argues that the Board erred in its obviousness conclusions that Kato discloses a key limitation in claim 6. The limitation in questions is “a data processor programmed to calculate a distance traveled by multiplying a number of steps counted by a stride length.” Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s finding as to Kato’s teachings and what they would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Kato discloses a processing means that uses a user’s stride length, along with the user’s “pitch,” to determine the user’s speed. The “pitch” as defined by Kato is the number of steps per selected time unit, i.e., the user’s step rate. A detector notifies the processing means each time the user’s foot contacts the ground, such that the processing means can obtain the user’s pitch. Kato explains that obtaining the user’s pitch allows the processing means to then calculate the user’s stride length, or “stride” as Kato defines it. Such a step is expressed in Kato by the equation SP = ST × PI, where SP is the speed, ST is the stride, and PI is the pitch per unit of time. Kato also discloses that the distance traveled by the user can be obtained by multiplying the calculated speed (SP) by a given period of time. From such disclosure, a simple equation can be derived to calculate the distance traveled: D = ST × PI × T, where T is the period of time.

Based on such teachings in Kato, the Federal Circuit agrees with the Board’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the prior art as teaching a “data processor programmed to calculate a distance traveled by multiplying a number of steps counted by a stride length,” as set forth in claim 6. As can be concluded from the above equations, the time-dependency of the pitch (PI) cancels out with the period of time (T), such that the distance traveled is simply D = ST × steps, as claimed in claim 6.

2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art. In the appeal before the Federal Circuit, Blackbird argues that the Board failed to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expressed pitch (PI) as “steps/time” to thus cancel out any time variables when calculating distance. Blackbird argues that the Board worked backward with knowledge of the claimed invention to modify the Kato reference as needed to reject claim 6. However, the Board’s conclusion of unpatentability did not rely on a modification of Kato’s equation, but on a finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Kato’s equation as teaching claim 6’s limitation. In this case, the Board determined that a person of ordinary skill would be an engineer with either a master’s degree or multiple years of experience in the field. As such, the Board could readily conclude that such an engineer would be able to take the elementary process steps of unit cancellation given Kato’s teachings.

For the reasons above, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s determination pertaining to the obviousness of claim 6’s data processor limitation over Kato. The Federal Circuit concludes that the Board had a sufficient basis to determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted Kato’s method for calculating distance traveled to be identical to claim 6’s limitation

Conclusion

It is important to realize and understand the implications of the decision made in Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies, v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC. As evidenced by the outcome, there are numerous considerations to be made when dealing with the question of obviousness. The question of obviousness not only involves the literal teachings of the prior art, but also the conclusions and interpretations that can be drawn from those teachings. The level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, though such a phrase can be vague, must also be established in any obviousness inquiry. As evidenced in this case, the level of skill established provides a basis from which conclusions about prior art teachings can be drawn to support an obviousness rejection. As described above, the prior art method relied upon in Kato would have clearly suggested the claim limitation on appeal to an engineer having multiple years of work experience. As such, the examiner/Board/Federal Circuit need not explain why such a person of ordinary skill would have taken specific steps or made certain modifications. Rather, the prior art teachings are interpreted through the eyes of the person of ordinary skill, and thus the conclusions that that person would draw as a whole need only be explained.

Full Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC decision can be read here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1879.OPINION.8-6-2020_1632064.pdf

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed throughout this blog are the views and opinions of the individual author(s) and/or contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of our firm, CIONCA IP Law. P.C.

PATENT, Trademark and IP Law Blog

Marin Cionca9/13/2023 2:06:32 PM

So, who owns the “X” trademark? Is it Facebook or is it Elon Musk and his Twitter?
More
Marin Cionca7/14/2023 10:20:00 PM

CIONCA IP Supports OCIPLA
More
Marin Cionca6/1/2023 11:29:01 PM

CIONCA IP WINS AT TTAB CANCELATION OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION FOR ORANGE COUNTY CLIENT
More
CIONCA IP - MC4/1/2023 5:21:45 PM

UNICOLORS, INC. v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ L. P. – A Synopsis of a Copyright Infringement Case
More
CIONCA IP - MC1/14/2023 2:21:06 PM

Broad specification or broad claims in a patent application?
More
CIONCA IP - EC12/23/2022 9:28:33 PM

Is Mariah Carey the “Queen of Christmas”?
More
CIONCA IP - MC10/7/2022 9:33:56 PM

Rejection of Invention or Rejection of Patent Claims?
More
CIONCA IP (MC)7/13/2022 5:27:56 PM

Who is the owner of the trademark? Priority and Senior User Disputes
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)5/6/2022 5:19:00 PM

Documentarian
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/29/2022 4:56:42 PM

An Apple from the Apple Tree
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/22/2022 4:44:26 PM

Electrochemiluminescence
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/8/2022 4:51:08 PM

Gametime
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (BS)4/1/2022 5:05:16 PM

Screentime
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)3/25/2022 4:58:23 PM

Internet Protocol Addresses
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (BS)3/16/2022 5:00:54 PM

We TINK It Should Be Protected
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)3/4/2022 4:54:18 PM

Tinker Bell
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)2/25/2022 5:01:34 PM

Computer Memory
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)2/18/2022 4:22:47 PM

Machine or Transformation
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)2/11/2022 4:52:28 PM

Air Force 1
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)1/14/2022 4:52:22 PM

Fees and more Fees?
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/17/2021 4:51:21 PM

Royalty or Lowborn
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/10/2021 5:06:54 PM

Short-Range Wireless Networks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/3/2021 4:58:39 PM

TIGHT or TITE
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)11/19/2021 4:57:10 PM

TAG Your It!
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)11/12/2021 4:56:57 PM

Medical Patents
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)11/5/2021 4:40:14 PM

Authentic Army
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/29/2021 4:49:28 PM

Scouting Trademarks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/22/2021 4:10:03 PM

Free Speech and Trademarks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/15/2021 4:55:32 PM

DNA of Patents
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/8/2021 5:02:03 PM

Backyard Trademarks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/1/2021 4:58:25 PM

Take a seat and read about seats
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/24/2021 5:15:50 PM

Let's take a ride on the Segway!
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/17/2021 4:57:53 PM

An Apple off the Apple Tree
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/10/2021 4:59:08 PM

VROOM VROOM VROOM
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/3/2021 4:56:24 PM

On Copyrights of Annotations.
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/27/2021 4:55:40 PM

Rejecting Trademark Contracts
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/20/2021 4:42:46 PM

It's a Bratz Girl, in a Barbie World (Pt. 2)
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/13/2021 4:57:49 PM

Personalized Medication
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/6/2021 4:39:04 PM

It's a Bratz Girl, in a Barbie World
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/31/2021 3:21:56 AM

Ice Cream, You Scream
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/23/2021 4:12:50 PM

Cereal Killer
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/16/2021 5:00:45 PM

Buy me a ring, darling
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/7/2021 2:52:33 PM

Offensiveness vs Free Speech in Trademark Law
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)6/25/2021 4:45:12 PM

Woof Woof - Trademark Law
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)6/18/2021 5:29:44 PM

Forum Selection 101
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)6/11/2021 4:23:58 PM

Willful v Innocent
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)5/17/2021 2:38:30 PM

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/23/2021 5:34:02 PM

Oracle Patent Problems
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/5/2021 5:38:23 PM

Blockchain and the Expanding US Patent Landscape
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (MC)3/24/2021 2:19:11 PM

Invention and Art Analogy
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (BR)1/19/2021 4:57:54 PM

QuikTrip West, Inc. v. Weigel Stores, Inc.
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (AP)12/7/2020 4:06:28 PM

St Jude Medical LLC v Snyders Heart Valve LLC
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/1/2020 5:07:58 PM

Allen v. Cooper, Governor of North Carolina
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (JM)10/8/2020 2:57:24 PM

Royal Crown Company Inc., Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Inc., v The Coca-Cola Company
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SG)10/6/2020 2:42:35 PM

Apple, Inc., v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.: Sanction Orders and Obviousness
More
CIONCA IP Team (SE)9/16/2020 4:21:45 PM

CIONCA IP Launches New Online Patent Website
More
CIONCA IP Team9/15/2020 5:11:49 PM

Comparing Apples to Apples: TTAB on In re Horizon Group USA, Inc.
More
CIONCA IP Team9/3/2020 4:30:41 PM

D2 Holdings v. House of Cards
More
CIONCA IP Team8/31/2020 12:09:17 PM

Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies, v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC: Obviousness
More
CIONCA IP Team8/11/2020 11:56:24 AM

Adidas AG v. Nike INC.
More
CIONCA IP Team7/20/2020 7:40:21 PM

Fitbit Inc. v. Valencell Inc.: Joint Parties in IPR Proceeding
More
CIONCA IP Team7/14/2020 7:51:31 PM

CIONCA IP Launches New Online Trademark Website
More
CIONCA IP 5/19/2020 7:36:30 PM

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.: “Obvious to Try” Rationale
More
Marin Cionca4/15/2020 4:41:43 PM

The Day After COVID-19 Pandemic – Hope or Fear?
More
CIONCA IP4/13/2020 9:33:36 PM

Two of a Kind: TTAB on Shannon DeVivo v. Celeste Ortiz
More
CIONCA IP3/16/2020 8:43:10 PM

GS CleanTech Corporation v. Adkins Energy, LLC: Inequitable Conduct
More
CIONCA IP3/10/2020 7:45:30 PM

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Inc.
More
Marin Cionca2/9/2020 7:46:10 PM

Analogous Prior Art or Not? A critical patent obviousness question
More
CIONCA IP 1/15/2020 4:47:19 PM

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC: Presumption of Nexus
More
CIONCA IP 1/9/2020 4:43:58 PM

The Bigger Picture: TTAB’s Decision in In re James Haden, M.D., P.A.
More
CIONCA IP 12/31/2019 4:29:41 PM

The Chamberlain Group, INC. v. One World Technologies, INC.
More
Marin Cionca12/9/2019 8:07:20 PM

A “glove” approach to patent claim construction
More
11/15/2019 8:15:11 PM

Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.: Objective Indicia and Copying
More
CIONCA IP10/16/2019 1:28:13 PM

To Use or Not to Use: The Statutory Period of Trademark Nonuse Prior to Presumed Abandonment
More
CIONCA IP10/7/2019 5:44:50 PM

A Decision in Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster LLC
More
Marin Cionca9/27/2019 9:32:48 PM

Can an Online Patent Attorney File My Patent?
More
CIONCA Team Member9/4/2019 7:20:46 PM

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission: Objective Boundaries
More
CIONCA Team Member8/19/2019 7:46:17 PM

In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC: Trademark Descriptiveness and Acquired Distinction
More
CIONCA Team Member8/5/2019 2:29:33 PM

Is Speculation Enough Evidence for an Appeal?: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corporation
More
CIONCA Team Member7/5/2019 2:22:42 PM

In re: Global IP Holdings LLC: Broadening Claims Through Reissue Applications
More
CIONCA Team Member6/27/2019 7:41:52 PM

Obviousness in a Single Prior Art Instance: Game and Technology Co., LTD., v. Activision Blizzard INC., Riot Games, INC.
More
Marin Cionca6/11/2019 8:43:17 PM

Can I Successfully License My Invention?
More
CIONCA Team Member5/20/2019 8:25:57 PM

PTAB Designates Cases as Precedential
More
CIONCA Team Member5/7/2019 7:13:41 PM

The Federal Circuit Defines a Technological Invention
More
Marin Cionca4/17/2019 3:48:33 PM

What Qualifies as Proper Use in Commerce Claim in a USPTO Trademark Application?
More
CIONCA Team Member4/3/2019 7:25:37 PM

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Designates Three Decisions Precedential
More
CIONCA Team Member3/21/2019 3:49:43 PM

Defining Inherency: A Decision in Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
More
Marin Cionca3/1/2019 9:36:50 PM

USPTO Director Andrei Iancu Visits Orange County!
More
CIONCA Team Member2/19/2019 7:12:46 PM

Revised Guidance by USPTO on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility and Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claims
More
CIONCA Team Member2/5/2019 7:22:27 PM

TiVo Puts Tivoli on Pause: TTAB’s Decision in TiVo Brands LLC v. Tivoli, LLC
More
Marin Cionca1/23/2019 9:45:30 PM

Patent Law Alert: All Sales of the Invention, Including Secret Sales May Invalidate a Patent
More
CIONCA Team Member1/4/2019 4:12:21 PM

In re: Tropp: New Matter in a Continuation Can Be Relevant to Written Description Requirement
More
CIONCA Team Member12/18/2018 6:12:48 PM

Schlafly v. The Saint Louis Brewery: The Registration of Merely a Surname
More
Marin Cionca12/8/2018 8:35:06 PM

IP Assets - Procurement, Enforcement, Monetization
More
CIONCA Team Member11/19/2018 1:07:51 PM

The Appeals Process
More
CIONCA Team Member10/16/2018 6:50:31 PM

A Double-Edged Sword: Benefit of Priority or Longer Patent Term
More
Marin Cionca10/1/2018 7:42:12 PM

Can I Register a Color as a Trademark or Service Mark?
More
CIONCA Team Member9/17/2018 4:33:20 PM

Trademarks and Likelihood of Confusion: Federal Circuit’s Decision in In re: Detroit Athletic Co.
More
Staff8/31/2018 7:26:58 PM

Patent Claim Interpretation By Federal Circuit's on Facebook's Contiguous Image Layout
More
Staff8/16/2018 4:24:01 PM

Correcting or Changing a Patent After Issue Through the Central Reexamination Unit
More
Marin Cionca7/31/2018 6:50:05 PM

My patent expired? Can I still sue for patent infringement?
More
7/3/2018 7:44:33 PM

Impax Laboratories Inc. v Lannett Holdings Inc. on Claim Invalidation
More
CIONCA IP5/17/2018 9:54:58 PM

Marin Cionca Presents at OCIPLA May 2018 Luncheon
More
5/4/2018 7:37:51 PM

The Hague System for Protection of International Designs
More
CIONCA Staff4/20/2018 5:25:25 PM

USPTO Changes Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility in View of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.
More
CIONCA Staff4/13/2018 9:10:04 PM

It Take Two to Tango: Knowles v. Iancu, a Standing Dispute in a PTAB Decision
More
3/20/2018 12:50:05 PM

Andrei Iancu - New Director of the USPTO
More
3/8/2018 1:25:46 PM

Proceed with Caution: Consider Carefully when Narrowing Claims for Allowance
More
CIONCA Team2/16/2018 4:07:48 PM

Fashion and Intellectual Property
More
CIONCA Team1/17/2018 8:12:06 PM

A Fork in the Road: Production or Protection?
More
1/2/2018 7:47:09 PM

The Lanham Act: Disparagement Provision Violates the First Amendment
More
12/26/2017 6:04:25 PM

CIONCA Sets Foot in San Francisco
More
12/1/2017 8:01:27 PM

An Introduction to Patent Cooperation Treaty Applications
More
11/17/2017 1:24:20 PM

An Introduction to Patent Searches
More
11/10/2017 6:47:44 PM

An Introduction to Design Patent Applications
More
Staff11/3/2017 4:20:04 PM

An Introduction to Provisional Patent Applications
More
Staff9/28/2017 7:27:22 PM

CIONCA
More
staff9/27/2017 5:12:07 PM

CIONCA - Patent and Trademark Law Attorney
More
staff9/27/2017 5:00:12 PM

Claim Indefiniteness During Patent Pre-Issuance: Define Your Invention, Not Just Your Audience
More
staff9/15/2017 9:33:30 PM

cionca
More
CIONCA Staff8/20/2017 3:16:11 PM

CIONCA on Patents: Think Twice Before Suing for Patent Infringement and Fight Back when Unreasonably Sued
More
CIONCA - Staff8/9/2017 5:39:58 PM

Patent Case Study: The Novelty Of An “Invention” Is NOT Enough To Make It Patentable
More
CIONCA - Staff6/28/2017 8:26:07 PM

Patent Law: Conditions Precedent May Expose Method Claim to Broad Interpretation During Prosecution
More
CIONCA - Staff6/15/2017 5:32:14 PM

Patent Law: Challenging the Patent Claim Definiteness Requirement
More
Marin Cionca4/25/2017 9:48:49 PM

Monetization of Patents: How to Make Money with Patents
More
Marin Cionca2/21/2017 12:30:52 AM

Software Patent Law Update: Federal Circuit Finds Graphical User Interface Patentable
More
Marin Cionca9/15/2016 9:47:39 PM

Patent Law Alert: Federal Circuit Opens Door for More Software Patents
More
Marin Cionca9/6/2016 9:26:12 PM

Patent Case Law: New Example of Software as Patentable Subject Matter
More
Iris Kim, PhD6/1/2016 7:04:50 PM

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Five More Decisions as Precedential
More
Marin Cionca5/17/2016 8:57:23 PM

Patent Claims Rejection Based on Inherency
More
Iris Kim, PhD3/25/2016 8:34:14 PM

Challenging a Claim’s Validity with Different Standards of Claim Construction
More
I. Kim PhD2/26/2016 8:47:51 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court Will Review Claim Construction Standards and Institution Decision Reviewability.
More
Marin Cionca2/16/2016 6:34:53 PM

In IPRs, patentees have to show that substitute patent claims are patentable
More
M. Cionca and I. Kim2/4/2016 5:55:16 PM

Software Inventions Are Still Patentable!
More
Marin1/28/2016 9:15:16 PM

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Two Decisions as Precedential
More
Marin1/28/2016 9:10:56 PM

How Unpredictability Can Affect Obviousness Challenges
More
Marin11/19/2015 2:13:05 PM

An Innovator’s Dilemma: Design or Utility Patent?
More
Marin11/18/2015 7:31:35 PM

When Is a Thesis Prior Art?
More
Marin11/18/2015 6:15:40 PM

Covered Business Method Claims Are Not Required to Particularly Target Financial Industry
More
Marin11/18/2015 6:11:11 PM

PTAB Decisions Give Examples of Patent Eligible Subject Matter
More

Marin Cionca, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

USPTO Reg. No. 63899

VERIFY

CIONCA IP's Patents and Trademarks Success Numbers as of 2022

CONTACT INFO

SEE MORE CONTACT INFO

About CIONCA® IP Law firm: We are an Irvine, Orange County, California based boutique intellectual property law firm with a focus on patent and trademark application, prosecution, opinion, licensing and IP enforcement services, including IP litigation, offering its IP services, other than IP litigation, primarily at flat fee rates. We serve local OC (Orange County) clients, as well as clients from the Los Angeles, San Diego and Riverside Counties and clients throughout the state of California, the United States and also international clients, such as EU clients.

HOME

Let’s talk!

We’d love to hear from you…we just need a little info
about your plans to take over the world!

P.S…Feel free to call us! (800)985-9198

Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies, v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC: Obviousness

PATENT, Trademark and IP Law Blog

CONTACT INFO

Let’s talk!

QuickContact 24/7

1-800-454-1360