12 of the 23 claims invalidated by being "obvious", in light of previous patents.
The rest invalidated against Apple, through "alternative claim construction". That is, Apple's reading of the patent and its specific claims, showed it was narrower in scope than their particular usage.
None of this seems really surprising, and whilst it does open the door for Apple, it probably doesn't much open the door for other implementations to flourish - not without a lawyer guiding your particular tech choices.
I find it hard to believe that this patent was keeping Apple from adding blood glucose sensing. Yes, I know a patent on blood oxygen level sensing stopped Apple, but there is a huge difference between oxygen level sensing and glucose sensing.
For oxygen sensing there are numerous readily available inexpensive stand-alone sensors available at any drug store or online. They are non-invasive and painless. Yes, a continuously wearable sensor would be better for some people but most people don't need that. Accordingly it is something that while nice wouldn't really sell a lot of watches, and so something that might not be worth licensing if it is under patent.
Glucose sensing on the other hand is a literal pain to test and has ongoing costs due to consumables used for the testing. Non-invasive painless glucose sensing on a watch is a feature that would sell a lot of watches. I think demand would be high enough, even if they have to raise prices, that it would easily be worth it.
we're building an artificial pancreas for hospitals, so I know a good bit about CGMs. Noninvasive blood sugar sensing is horrifically difficult. Every few years, people come along and say "oh this is just some simple DSP on spectroscopic information, piece of cake" before inevitably running up against:
- skin conductivity changes over time
- the ways in which skin tone changes signal absorption (which itself changes over time)
- the ways in which different levels of fitness affect blood flow, material density etc.
You also can't use it in a hospital setting, due to how your skin and bloodflow changes during serious conditions like sepsis (though I'm guessing they're not thinking about that market).
Really smart people have been trying to use Raman spectroscopy to solve this problem for decades at this point (early patents go to early 2000s). Apple is an extremely strong hardware vendor, and I wish them luck, but I would not hold my breath for this. Plus, I'm guessing they will not open the signal up for looping, which would really leave the T*DM community out to dry.
Honestly, none of those sound like blockers for the use case I and many other diabetics would like - monitoring for general blood sugar responses (rough curve) after eating. Sure, you wouldn't be able to use the measurements to dose insulin or even measure your actual (numeric) glucose level, but measuring my A1C every three months is good enough to do that in mine and many other cases. I've had my blood sugar controlled through diet and metformin with it being in the range of 5.9 - 6.2. I could do so much better if I had a better understanding of how my body, specifically, reacts to certain foods, mealtimes, routines (exercise after eating), etc.
It would be super helpful to know (relative to other foods) how my body reacts to claimed low-carb foods. Is there a large spike (don't need to know the number) or is it a much more flat curve? How long in general does it take for the line to return to pre-meal levels? What does that trend look like over many months? Heck, I could even run a rudimentary and simple test to do comparative insulin response to a known amount of carbs to see if my insulin response is improving over time (using the period of the curve). I would love to get an alert that hey, we think your glucose level shot up a lot (don't care how much) so that I can remediate it through exercise then and there and avoid that food or timing going forward.
Really hoping the people in Medtech don't make perfect the enemy of good in this case. Although maybe what you listed would still be blockers for even getting general glucose curves. I've been planning on getting a CGM for at least a few months to achieve all of this, but it would be great to just have it in a watch or other simple wearable.
I work in a related area. Non-invasive blood glucose has been a holy grail for analytical science, for decades, and remains a brutally difficult problem.
Yup. But there's hope that computational techniques can extract the signal from the noise.
If they can it'll be huge. Maybe even Ozempic-huge. There's a theory of weight loss that you can objectively manage your weight by never allowing your blood sugar to go over a certain level.
> Glucose sensing on the other hand is a literal pain to test
I’d be hard-pressed to believe that someone trying the newest Dexcom G7 CGM would find it more discomforting than a mosquito bite. And for that literal pain you get 10 days of constant readings on your phone.
> I think demand would be high enough, even if they have to raise prices, that it would easily be worth it.
This is probably correct but I don’t think many non-diabetic people would see an actual benefit from CGM data. It’s the kind of thing people love to think is useful but in reality it’ll be just one more thing to ignore.
I have type-1 diabetes, brought on late in life after going through a miserable 2 years of stress after my wife was in a coma due to medical negligence. She came out of it, but the damage was done, she won’t recover, and she is a shadow of who she was. Prolonged extreme stress can trigger type-1 diabetes, and once you have it, you have it for the rest of your life.
Right now, I’m on glipizide which manages (along with a low-carb diet) the situation, but I need the GCM so I know when this “honeymoon” period (before I start needing insulin) starts to end.
Unfortunately I have an extreme needle phobia too. My insurance doesn’t cover the G7, just the G6, so I don’t know if it’s different, but if I try to apply the G6, my heart rate will massively speed up, I will start to hyperventilate, and typically pass out when I click the button on the applicator. I’m out for only a few minutes, but it’s not a pleasant experience… I have to make sure I’m lying on a bed to do it now, after learning the hard way that it’s possible to fall when just sitting down, and head wounds don’t stop bleeding when you’re unconscious.
I would dearly love the ability to measure glucose non-invasively. It’s actually nowhere near as bad for me if I don’t have to click it myself, but my wife wouldn’t understand what to do, and my son is too young for me to feel comfortable asking. Theres no-one else around to help, so sometimes I make a dr appt, for a 10-second “click”. Most of the time I just put up with it. The hope is that the phobia starts to diminish, but so far it hasn’t, and yes I’ve tried psychologists.
Every 10 days, and [sigh] as I write, I recall that today is the day. Again.
Isn't that the key point and means Dexcom/Libre would cost you (or your insurance company) several thousands of dollars/pounds/euros/etc every single year. For many people they already have an iphone and just need an Apple watch which could last for several years.
> I’d be hard-pressed to believe that someone trying the newest Dexcom G7 CGM would find it more discomforting than a mosquito bite.
Not diabetic, but I've tried a set of two of these out of curiosity. The insertion pain is nothing, but having something bonded to your skin with adhesive constantly is kind of a pain.
I also got some irritation at the insertion sites around the 1-week mark, though that might have been because I don't have much fat on that area of my arm.
Wow! Really - this is the one patent-restricted feature I was hoping they were going to solve. I'm curious if a decent quality blood oxygen meter could give me additional data about my sleep apnea. I've previously trief several blood oxygen meters ordered from Amazon, and the results were very low accuracy and low confidence, and the only decent ones couldn't log data continuously over time. (At least not when I bought a few different ones a handful of years ago)
I'm in the US and I totally forgot about the blood oxygen patent fiasco. I have an Apple Watch Series 8 and it continues to work. Maybe it's only newer models that are affected?
Blocked by the International Trade Commission from being imported which is why watches prior to block still work. Patent case ended up in a hung jury trial with all but 1 juror siding with Apple.
Aside: I was surprised to read "dental caries" in the list of things detectable through similar methods in the court filing screenshot in this post. Is that about a device that could optically detect caries from tooth surfaces through similar principles?
If you've ever put a bright light up to your teeth in a mirror, it's pretty incredibly how translucent dental enamel actually is, and the level of internal detail you can see just by eye.
This is why patents are Regressive and should be done away with. They no longer protect small-time inventors, only corporations. They stifle all innovation.
The original point of a patent is a good one: document your work publicly and in return get a window of time to profit from said work. It was intended to improve innovation by making people not hide their work.
It wasn't really designed for people patenting vague concepts, math or ideas.
If you build a better mousetrap, a patent is pretty good. If you have a vague idea you might show ads in elevators, you should A: just be shot, and B: not get a patent
Lots of small companies only get funding because investors believe the IP will be worth something even if the company fails. I’m not wild about our current patent situation, but we have to recognize that a less restrictive recision would impact small business pretty hard.
Well, you can live in that world by observing China. IP doesn’t exist. All things are open source. You have to be careful doing things but people still do them and a cheaper product shows up on Aliexpress the next day.
I think that is a major problem with patents - all inventions are treated the same. However there is a big difference between something reasonably new that took a decade of r&d work to get right and a tiny change to an existing invention which took a day and is an obvious logical progession from what came before which everyone would have came up with.
I once attended a patent trial and it was interesting. The defendant claimed the patent was obvious.
The plaintiff had some pretty good evidence that it was in fact not obvious:
• The defendant was one of the largest companies in the field with a very accomplished and impressive R&D department. The plaintiff introduced documents they got from the defendant during discovery where the CEO had called solving the specific problem that the patent solved to be vital to the future existence of their company and made solving it a top priority. Yet they failed to make any progress on it.
• Two of the other largest companies in the field, also with impressive R&D departments, had also been working on this and failed to come up with anything.
The jury found that the patent was obvious.
What I think happened is that both plaintiff and defendant had presentations that explained to the jury what the patent did. Both presentations did a great job of finding a problem from everyday life that was kind of analogous to the problem the patent involved, and translating the patent's solution to that everyday life problem. The presentations made it easy to understand the gist of what the patent did.
There's a natural tendency to mistake easy to understand for obviousness, and I think that by explaining the invention in a way that made it easy to understand it also made the jury think it was obvious.
But if you don't explain the invention in a way that the jury can understand how are they supposed to be able to make decisions?
This reminds me of college. Many a time I'd read some theorem named after a mathematician and think "how the heck does this obvious theorem get named after someone?". The answer is that it wasn't at all obvious when that mathematician proved it 400 years ago. I'm seeing it after 400 years of people figuring out how to present the subject in a way that makes that theorem obvious.
That reminds me of a classic math joke: A professor says "It is obvious that" and writes an equation. Then he pauses, and says "...wait, is that obvious?". He goes to another board and starts deriving the equation, not saying anything while doing this. After 20 minutes he had gotten it, says "I was right! It is obvious!" and goes back and resumes his lecture.
The patent law definition of obvious is different from the common understanding.
Specifically, it only counts if it was obvious before the patent filing to a person of ordinary skill. It's actually really hard for a patent claim to be rejected for obviousness. A poking stick for pressing buttons on a TV without getting up counts as a non-obvious invention.
A lot of the patents needed to implement mobile standards are designated as "standards essential patents", meaning that the party bringing them up the table in the standards committees needs to disclose them and agree to licence them on a FRAND basis to anyone who asks (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory).
In many cases there are patent pools you can license that cover large areas of the standards, without needing to negotiate each one individually.
Many very fundamental parts of 4G/ 5G are patented and you'll not be able to get your device to work on the network without those patents, so Apple will have licensed those patents under FRAND for their new C1 modem.
Readit News
The rest invalidated against Apple, through "alternative claim construction". That is, Apple's reading of the patent and its specific claims, showed it was narrower in scope than their particular usage.
None of this seems really surprising, and whilst it does open the door for Apple, it probably doesn't much open the door for other implementations to flourish - not without a lawyer guiding your particular tech choices.
Note how similar this is to the pulse oximeter, which was invented in Japan in 1972 and patented in the US in 2004.
https://www.nihonkohden.com/technology/aoyagi.html
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050049469A1/en
How could an invention from 1972, which I assume was publically disclosed around that time, be patented in 2004?
Were the details kept secret for 32 years?
For oxygen sensing there are numerous readily available inexpensive stand-alone sensors available at any drug store or online. They are non-invasive and painless. Yes, a continuously wearable sensor would be better for some people but most people don't need that. Accordingly it is something that while nice wouldn't really sell a lot of watches, and so something that might not be worth licensing if it is under patent.
Glucose sensing on the other hand is a literal pain to test and has ongoing costs due to consumables used for the testing. Non-invasive painless glucose sensing on a watch is a feature that would sell a lot of watches. I think demand would be high enough, even if they have to raise prices, that it would easily be worth it.
- skin conductivity changes over time
- the ways in which skin tone changes signal absorption (which itself changes over time)
- the ways in which different levels of fitness affect blood flow, material density etc.
You also can't use it in a hospital setting, due to how your skin and bloodflow changes during serious conditions like sepsis (though I'm guessing they're not thinking about that market).
Really smart people have been trying to use Raman spectroscopy to solve this problem for decades at this point (early patents go to early 2000s). Apple is an extremely strong hardware vendor, and I wish them luck, but I would not hold my breath for this. Plus, I'm guessing they will not open the signal up for looping, which would really leave the T*DM community out to dry.
It would be super helpful to know (relative to other foods) how my body reacts to claimed low-carb foods. Is there a large spike (don't need to know the number) or is it a much more flat curve? How long in general does it take for the line to return to pre-meal levels? What does that trend look like over many months? Heck, I could even run a rudimentary and simple test to do comparative insulin response to a known amount of carbs to see if my insulin response is improving over time (using the period of the curve). I would love to get an alert that hey, we think your glucose level shot up a lot (don't care how much) so that I can remediate it through exercise then and there and avoid that food or timing going forward.
Really hoping the people in Medtech don't make perfect the enemy of good in this case. Although maybe what you listed would still be blockers for even getting general glucose curves. I've been planning on getting a CGM for at least a few months to achieve all of this, but it would be great to just have it in a watch or other simple wearable.
If they can it'll be huge. Maybe even Ozempic-huge. There's a theory of weight loss that you can objectively manage your weight by never allowing your blood sugar to go over a certain level.
I’d be hard-pressed to believe that someone trying the newest Dexcom G7 CGM would find it more discomforting than a mosquito bite. And for that literal pain you get 10 days of constant readings on your phone.
> I think demand would be high enough, even if they have to raise prices, that it would easily be worth it.
This is probably correct but I don’t think many non-diabetic people would see an actual benefit from CGM data. It’s the kind of thing people love to think is useful but in reality it’ll be just one more thing to ignore.
Right now, I’m on glipizide which manages (along with a low-carb diet) the situation, but I need the GCM so I know when this “honeymoon” period (before I start needing insulin) starts to end.
Unfortunately I have an extreme needle phobia too. My insurance doesn’t cover the G7, just the G6, so I don’t know if it’s different, but if I try to apply the G6, my heart rate will massively speed up, I will start to hyperventilate, and typically pass out when I click the button on the applicator. I’m out for only a few minutes, but it’s not a pleasant experience… I have to make sure I’m lying on a bed to do it now, after learning the hard way that it’s possible to fall when just sitting down, and head wounds don’t stop bleeding when you’re unconscious.
I would dearly love the ability to measure glucose non-invasively. It’s actually nowhere near as bad for me if I don’t have to click it myself, but my wife wouldn’t understand what to do, and my son is too young for me to feel comfortable asking. Theres no-one else around to help, so sometimes I make a dr appt, for a 10-second “click”. Most of the time I just put up with it. The hope is that the phobia starts to diminish, but so far it hasn’t, and yes I’ve tried psychologists.
Every 10 days, and [sigh] as I write, I recall that today is the day. Again.
Isn't that the key point and means Dexcom/Libre would cost you (or your insurance company) several thousands of dollars/pounds/euros/etc every single year. For many people they already have an iphone and just need an Apple watch which could last for several years.
Not diabetic, but I've tried a set of two of these out of curiosity. The insertion pain is nothing, but having something bonded to your skin with adhesive constantly is kind of a pain.
I also got some irritation at the insertion sites around the 1-week mark, though that might have been because I don't have much fat on that area of my arm.
The CGM that wins is the one that doesnt stop working when batteries die. Or piercing the skin.
(Aha, this article says it's Series 9 and Ultra 2 that are affected: <https://www.tomsguide.com/wellness/smartwatches/apple-wins-p...>.)
Deleted Comment
It wasn't really designed for people patenting vague concepts, math or ideas.
If you build a better mousetrap, a patent is pretty good. If you have a vague idea you might show ads in elevators, you should A: just be shot, and B: not get a patent
I think that is a major problem with patents - all inventions are treated the same. However there is a big difference between something reasonably new that took a decade of r&d work to get right and a tiny change to an existing invention which took a day and is an obvious logical progession from what came before which everyone would have came up with.
The plaintiff had some pretty good evidence that it was in fact not obvious:
• The defendant was one of the largest companies in the field with a very accomplished and impressive R&D department. The plaintiff introduced documents they got from the defendant during discovery where the CEO had called solving the specific problem that the patent solved to be vital to the future existence of their company and made solving it a top priority. Yet they failed to make any progress on it.
• Two of the other largest companies in the field, also with impressive R&D departments, had also been working on this and failed to come up with anything.
The jury found that the patent was obvious.
What I think happened is that both plaintiff and defendant had presentations that explained to the jury what the patent did. Both presentations did a great job of finding a problem from everyday life that was kind of analogous to the problem the patent involved, and translating the patent's solution to that everyday life problem. The presentations made it easy to understand the gist of what the patent did.
There's a natural tendency to mistake easy to understand for obviousness, and I think that by explaining the invention in a way that made it easy to understand it also made the jury think it was obvious.
But if you don't explain the invention in a way that the jury can understand how are they supposed to be able to make decisions?
This reminds me of college. Many a time I'd read some theorem named after a mathematician and think "how the heck does this obvious theorem get named after someone?". The answer is that it wasn't at all obvious when that mathematician proved it 400 years ago. I'm seeing it after 400 years of people figuring out how to present the subject in a way that makes that theorem obvious.
That reminds me of a classic math joke: A professor says "It is obvious that" and writes an equation. Then he pauses, and says "...wait, is that obvious?". He goes to another board and starts deriving the equation, not saying anything while doing this. After 20 minutes he had gotten it, says "I was right! It is obvious!" and goes back and resumes his lecture.
Specifically, it only counts if it was obvious before the patent filing to a person of ordinary skill. It's actually really hard for a patent claim to be rejected for obviousness. A poking stick for pressing buttons on a TV without getting up counts as a non-obvious invention.
In many cases there are patent pools you can license that cover large areas of the standards, without needing to negotiate each one individually.
Many very fundamental parts of 4G/ 5G are patented and you'll not be able to get your device to work on the network without those patents, so Apple will have licensed those patents under FRAND for their new C1 modem.
Deleted Comment
Or are there still quite a few challenges ahead and this is merely one roadblock removed.