Things have certainly heated up recently in the law suit brought by wearable fitness device maker, Jawbone, against Fitbit Inc., alleging that Fitbit poached Jawbone employees and stole trade secrets in order to decimate the company. Jawbone filed a brief in opposition to Fitbit’s request that the ITC find three Jawbone patents ineligible as abstract ideas. The following day, a California court ordered Jawbone to provide Fitbit with computers and other electronically stored information despite Jawbone’s contention that it was not required to submit such discovery.
On January 19, 2016, Jawbone filed a brief in response to Fitbit’s request that three Jawbone patents be found ineligible pursuant to the 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Specifically, Fitbit requested that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,398,546, 8,446,275, and 8,793,522, be found ineligible for claims as they merely recite abstract concepts. In opposition, Jawbone argued that Fitbit ignored “concrete, articulated limitations of the inventions claimed and, instead, [stripped] down the claims until an element that can be characterized as an abstract idea [was] revealed.”
Jawbone’s brief defended each of the patents attacked by Fitbit. In defending the 8,398,546 patent — which relates to designed systems intended to provide weight-loss suggestions based on data — Jawbone argued that Fitbit ignored the patents essential purpose of providing accurate data without human error or dishonest fitness data. The brief went on to state, “[t]he ’546 provides a specific, technological solution to this problem by devising a system of sensors that can collect the necessary data accurately and continuously and, in conjunction with a processor, use that data to provide weight-loss suggestions.”
The brief made similar arguments in defense of the other two patents, contending that the 8,446,275 patent integrates a system that develops health scores and the 8,793,522 patent covers a system which is designed to extend the battery life on fitness devices. Additionally, Jawbone pointed to similar Fitbit patents, arguing that the same eligibility arguments made by Fitbit could be applied to their own patent applications. Fitbit is expected to file a reply brief in the coming week.
On January 20, 2016, Jawbone was ordered to provide Fitbit with computers and access to other related electronically stored information, despite its claim that disclosure was not necessary under California Codes of Civil Procedure. Jawbone argued that under the California Code, discovery cannot take place until the plaintiff has identified the specific trade secrets at issue, which it had not done. However, Judge Ernest Goldsmith of the San Francisco Superior Court found that the limitation is not applicable because it only applies to situations where the plaintiff is seeking discovery and not where the defendant is seeking the discovery.
Additionally, Judge Goldsmith ordered Jawbone to provide Fitbit with separate trade secret designations, identifying the specific ex-employees that it accuses of misappropriating trade secrets, marking only the information that they’re accused of stealing as confidential. Jawbone was not pleased with this order, arguing that it would result in the company divulging a more complete picture of its intellectual property. However, Judge Goldsmith maintained the order, asserting that Fitbit would be “in a lot of trouble” if they use any of the disclosed information.